Delivering environmental benefits through entry-level
agri-environment schemes in the EU
Clunie Keenleyside
Ben Allen
Kaley Hart
Henrietta Menadue
Vyara Stefanova
Jaroslav Prazan
Irina Herzon
Thierry Clement
Andrea Povellato
Mariusz Maciejczak
Nigel Boatman
This study, financed by the Commission of the European Communities, has been carried out
by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, and the consultant has full responsibility
for the content. The conclusions, recommendations and opinions presented in this report
reflect those of the consultant, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
Commission.
14 December 2011
Clunie Keenleyside
Ben Allen
Kaley Hart
Henrietta Menadue
Vyara Stefanova
Jaroslav Prazan
Irina Herzon
Thierry Clement
Andrea Povellato
Mariusz Maciejczak
Nigel Boatman
The report should be cited as follows:
Keenleyside, C., Allen, B., Hart, K., Menadue, H., Stefanova, V., Prazan, J., Herzon. I.,
Clement, T., Povellato, A., Maciejczak, M. and Boatman, N. (2011) Delivering environmental
benefits through entry level agri-environment schemes in the EU. Report Prepared for DG
Environment, Project ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0035. Institute for European Environmental Policy:
London.
Corresponding author: Clunie Keenleyside, IEEP ([email protected]).
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report would like to express their thanks to the following people for their
expert contributions:
Stephanie Newman, Jana Poláková, Graham Tucker, Caitlin McCormack and Amandine Suire
for their additional research support.
David Baldock for invaluable support and important contributions to individual chapters.
Eva Viestova, the Project Officer at DG Environment and other members of the Project
Steering Group for their support and invaluable comments throughout the study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... III
1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Framing the study .................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Defining entry-level agri-environment management ............................................... 1
1.3
Approach to the study and structure of this report ................................................. 2
2
2.1
A TYPOLOGY OF ENTRY-LEVEL AGRI-ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT IN THE EU-27 ..... 4
Purpose and development of the typology ............................................................. 4
2.2 A typology of types of entry-level management actions and environmental
objectives ......................................................................................................................... 8
3 COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS
OF
EU-27
ENTRY-LEVEL
AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ................................................................................................ 13
3.1
Qualitative overview of entry-level management actions in the EU-27 RDPs ......... 13
3.2
Types of management action within the broad categories .................................... 15
3.3
How management actions are packaged within agri-environment programmes .... 24
3.4
Management action in the RDPs for the outermost regions of the EU ................... 26
4 INTRODUCTION TO CASE STUDIES OF ENTRY-LEVEL AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES IN
SEVEN MEMBER STATES ................................................................................................. 28
4.1 The environmental focus of the case study entry-level schemes and their coherence
with regional environmental priorities ............................................................................ 28
4.2
Structure of the agri-environment programmes in the case study Member States . 30
4.3 Relationship of entry-level management actions with other agricultural and
environmental payments................................................................................................ 41
5 REVIEW OF REFERENCE LEVEL, PAYMENT RATES AND FACTORS AFFECTING UPTAKE OF
SELECTED ENTRY-LEVEL SCHEMES ................................................................................... 42
5.1
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 42
5.2
The reference level for agri-environment schemes................................................ 42
5.3
Calculating payment rates .................................................................................... 53
5.4
Targeting entry-level schemes by payments, eligibility or management actions .... 59
5.5
Factors influencing uptake of entry-level agri-environment schemes .................... 61
5.6
The wider significance of uptake of entry-level agri-environment schemes ........... 68
6 THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING, REVISING AND IMPROVING AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
SCHEMES ........................................................................................................................ 70
6.1
Designing the 2007-13 entry-level agri-environment schemes ............................... 70
6.2
Revising schemes and management actions during the 2007-13 RDP .................... 74
6.3
Stakeholder involvement in scheme design and revision....................................... 77
7
FARMER SUPPORT NETWORKS AND FARMERS’ ATTITUDES ...................................... 81
7.1
The context and role of support networks in agri-environment programmes ........ 81
7.2
Provision of farmer support networks .................................................................. 82
7.3
Characteristics of effective support networks ....................................................... 91
7.4 Effect of participation in entry-level schemes on farmers’ attitudes to
environmental issues...................................................................................................... 94
8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 99
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 107
LIST OF SOURCES FOR THE CASE STUDIES ...................................................................... 116
ANNEX 1 - LITERATURE REVIEW OF EXISTING AGRI-ENVIRONMENT TYPOLOGIES........... 118
ANNEX 2 - THE TYPES AND CATEGORIES OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS USED IN THIS STUDY
.................................................................................................................................... 124
ANNEX 3 - THE BIO-GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES OF THE EU-27 ................................... 140
ANNEX 4 - DEVELOPMENT OF GAEC STANDARDS IN FRANCE 2006-2010 ........................ 144
ANNEX 5 - EXAMPLES OF FERTILISER AND PPP REQUIREMENTS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE
39(3) OF REGULATION 1698/2005 ................................................................................. 147
ANNEX 6 – EXAMPLES OF PAYMENT CALCULATIONS ..................................................... 149
ANNEX 7 - NGO-FUNDED PILOT AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES IN BULGARIA............... 186
ANNEX 8 - REVISIONS TO THE ENTRY-LEVEL AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEME IN BULGARIA
DURING THE COURSE OF THE 2007-13 PROGRAMME .................................................... 188
ANNEX 9 - EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE ENTRY LEVEL STEWARDSHIP SCHEME IN ENGLAND 190
List of Boxes
Box 2.1: The 63 types and 15 categories of entry-level management action
in the EU-27 RDPs
Box 3.1: Example of the menu based approach used in England, UK
Box 3.2: Example of compulsory and optional packages used in Italy
Box 5.1: Differing costs of compliance with SMR4 (Nitrate Vulnerable
Zones) in England
Box 5.2: Relationship of reference level and agri-environment options for
soil erosion (UK)
Box 5.3: Proposed CAP ‘greening’ requirements within existing entry-level
agri-environment schemes
Box 5.4: Examples of degressive agri-environment payments
Box 5.5: Success of a new scheme taking arable land out of production in
Finland
Box 5.6: Target HNV grasslands in Bulgaria not eligible for support
Box 6.1: Influence of research on the entry-level scheme for fertiliser
reduction in Finland
Box 6.2: Two examples of revisions to entry level agri-environment schemes
involving desk-based management requirements
Box 6.3: Progressive targeting of schemes to prevent soil erosion on the
Czech Republic
Box 6.4: Experience of the collaborative scheme design process in Finland
Box 6.5: The benefits of involving farmers in the design process in
Lombardia (Italy)
Box 7.1: Examples of effective support networks for entry-level agrienvironment schemes
Box 7.2: Farmers’ attitudes to agri-environment payments in a village in
Poland
List of Annex Boxes
Box A3.1: Outermost regions of the European Union
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Criteria to assess types of entry-level actions against
environmental objectives
Table 4.1: Agri-environment schemes and management actions studied in
the case study Member States
Table 4.2: Agri-environment schemes in the Czech Republic
Table 4.3: Agri-environment schemes in Bulgaria
Table 4.4: Agri-environment schemes in Finland
Table 4.5: Agri-environment schemes in France
Table 4.6: Agricultural characteristics of the three Italian regions
Table 4.7: Agri-environment schemes in Italy
Table 4.8: Agri-environment schemes in Poland
Table 4.9: Agri-environment schemes in England
6
25
26
46
51
53
58
62
67
73
75
77
79
80
91
96
141
7
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
37
39
Table 4.10: Agri-environment options within the integrated RDP scheme in
Scotland
Table 5.1: Framework of issues and standards for GAEC cross-compliance
Table 5.2: Changes in the reference level and agri-environment
requirements for grassland in France 1993-2010
Table 5.3: Agri-environment payment calculations for extensive grassland
management in the Czech Republic and the UK
Table 5.4: Entry-level extensive grassland management schemes in Poland
Table 6.1: Comparison of the Bulgarian SAPARD pilot schemes and the
initial 2007-2013 RDP agri-environment schemes (before modifications
during the course of the programme)
Table 7.1: Sources of information and advice for farmers about agrienvironment schemes in Poland
List of Annex Tables
Table A1.1: Types of agri-environment schemes in relation to
environmental objectives
Table A1.2: Agri-environment measures at an EU level
Table A1.3: Basic summary of Logic Framework for agri-environment
measure costs
Table A1.4: Environmental Pressures (ranked by decreasing order)
Table A3.1: Member States and regions and their associated bioclimatic
zones
Table A5.1: Examples of fertiliser and PPP requirements defined under
Article 39(3) of Regulation 1698/2005
Table A6.1: Payment calculations for Bulgaria
Table A6.2: Payment caluclations for Czech Republic
Table A6.3: Payment calculation for Finland
Table A6.4: Payment calculation for France
Table A6.5: Payment calculation for Poland
Table A6.6: Payment calculation for England (UK)
Table A6.7: Payment calculation for Scotland (UK)
Table A7.1: NGO-funded pilot agri-environment schemes in Bulgaria
Table A8.1: Revisions to the entry-level agri-environment scheme in
Bulgaria during the course of the 2007-13 programme
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: The ten case study RDPs
Figure 2.1: Typology of types of entry-level agri-environment management
actions and environmental objectives
Figure 2.2: Number of types of entry-level management actions with the
potential to contribute towards the nine environmental objectives
Figure 3.1: Proportion of the EU-27 (continental), EU-15 and EU-12 RDPs
containing each of the 15 different categories of management actions
Figure 3.2: Number of different types of management action within each
40
43
49
54
61
71
87
118
119
120
120
138
145
147
149
154
160
162
169
179
184
186
3
9
11
14
16
RDP
Figure 3.3: Categories of entry-level management actions found in EU-15OR
RDPs
Figure 5.1: Implementation of the ‘grassland premium’ schemes in France
from 1992
27
47
List of Annex Figures
Figure A3.1: Indicative map of bioclimatic regions in Europe (2008)
140
ACRONYMS
ADAS
UK agricultural, environmental and rural development consultancy
AFI
Agri-environmental Footprint Index
BAP
Biodiversity Action Plan
BTO
British Trust for Ornithology
BSPB
Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds
CAD
Contrat d’Agriculture Durable (France)
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
CMEF
Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
CSL
Central Science Laboratory (UK)
CTE
Contrat Territorial d’Exploitation (France)
Defra
Department of Food and Rural Affairs (England, UK)
EAFRD
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
ELS
Entry Level Stewardship (England, UK)
EU-10
The 10 ‘new’ Member States before the accession of Bulgaria and Romania
EU-12
The 12 ‘new’ Member States of the EU
EU-15
The 15 ‘old’ Member States of the EU
EU-15OR
The seven RDPs in the outermost regions of the EU
EU-27
The 27 Member States of the EU
EU-27C
The 81 Rural Development Programmes in the continental regions of the EU
ENRD
European Network for Rural Development
ESA
Environmentally Sensitive Area
ES
Environmental Stewardship (agri-environment scheme in England, UK)
FAS
Farm Advisory Service
FERA
Food and Environment Research Agency (UK)
GAEC
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
GFP
Good Farming Practice
GHG
Greenhouse gas
HLS
Higher Level Stewardship (England, UK)
HNV
High Nature Value
IBA
Important Bird Area
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
LFA
Less Favoured Area
i
LMO
Land Managers’ Options (Scotland, UK)
LPIS
Land Parcel Information System
LU
Livestock Unit
Marktentlastungs- und Kulturlandschaftsausgleich (agri-environment
scheme in Baden Württemberg, Germany)
MEKA
MoA
Ministry of Agriculture
MTE
Mid term evaluation
NAAS
National Agricultural Advisory Service (Bulgaria)
NFU
National Farmers Union (UK)
NGO
Non-governmental organisation
OELS
Organic Entry Level Stewardship (England, UK)
NVZ
Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
PDRH
Plan de développement rural hexagonal (France)
PHAE
Prime à l’herbe agri-environnementale (France)
PPP
Plant Protection Products
RDC
Rural Development Contract (Scotland, UK)
RDP
Rural Development Programme
RICS
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (UK)
RMIF
Red Meat Industry Forum
RP
Rural Priorities (RDP scheme, Scotland, UK)
RSPB
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (UK)
SAPARD
Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development
SAPS
Single Area Payment Scheme
SMP
Soil Management Plan (UK)
SMR
Statutory Management Requirement
SPR
Soil Protection Review (UK)
SRDP
Scotland Rural Development Programme
UAA
Utilisable Agricultural Area
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agri-environment programmes are a long-established part of the CAP and now a key policy
tool in the delivery of EU environmental priorities on farmland. The purpose of this study is
to gain a better understanding of the nature and diversity of entry-level agri-environment
schemes throughout the EU-27, in the context of the 2007-13 RDPs. ‘Entry-level’ is a relative
term describing environmental management which varies from one RDP to another but is
designed to deliver incremental improvements just above the environmental reference level
which all farmers must observe as the baseline for agri-environment payments. There have
been no systematic studies at EU level specifically of entry-level agri-environment
management, nor any attempt to provide a comprehensive typology.
Management actions are the day-to-day practices used across the farmland to grow crops,
produce livestock and safeguard environmental resources, and can be regarded as the
building blocks of all agri-environment schemes and of the reference level that underpins
them. Management actions can be defined precisely, and for this reason were chosen as the
common unit of analysis for developing the typology and analysing the agri-environment
schemes in the 88 RDPs. The scope of this study does not include agri-environment
management that was considered to be higher-level, such as the creation or restoration of
landscape features and habitats or significant changes to the whole farming system, nor
does it cover agri-environment support for organic farming, integrated production and
genetic resources.
In the first stage of the study a typology of entry-level agri-environment management in EU27 was developed, based on detailed information extracted from all the 2007-13 RDPs
(including those for the outermost regions) and related sources.
A typology of entry-level agri-environment management in the 2007-13 RDPs
A detailed analysis of agri-environment schemes in all 88 of the 2007-13 Rural Development
Programmes (RDPs) across the EU-27 revealed a total of 63 different types of entry-level
agri-environment management actions, which can be grouped into 15 broad categories. For
the purpose of developing the typology nine EU-wide environmental objectives were
selected: farmland biodiversity; agricultural landscapes; water quality; water availability; soil
functionality; climate change mitigation; climate change adaptation; resilience to flooding;
and resilience to fire. The potential contribution of each of the 63 different types of entrylevel management actions to each of the nine environmental objectives was assessed, and
formed the basis for the typology, which also reflects the frequency of occurrence of the
broad categories of management actions in RDPs across the EU.
The typology shows that all of the 63 types of entry-level management action have the
potential to contribute (directly or indirectly) to at least two of the nine environmental
objectives, and that almost all of them have the potential to contribute to farmland
biodiversity and climate change adaptation. Some types of management action are much
more ‘multi-objective’ than others, notably the maintenance of permanent pasture, fallow,
traditional management, management of water features in the landscape and water levels,
and taking and maintaining land out of production which, together with the two non-landiii
based categories of management plans and record keeping and training, have the potential
to contribute directly or indirectly to all nine objectives.
There are two important caveats to bear in mind in using the typology. Firstly, the
contribution of different types of management action to the environmental objectives is
described as ‘potential’ because the actual contribution is very often context specific and
dependent upon a range of factors, such as how and where the management actions are
implemented and the level of uptake across a region or target area. Secondly, the typology
uses a subjective categorisation of management actions for the purpose of analysis, but
within agri-environment schemes management actions are often presented quite
differently, for example in ‘packages’ of multiple actions linked to a specific payment under
the scheme.
The different types of entry-level management action present in the 88 RDPs
All 88 RDPs were scanned for the presence of each of the 63 types of management action
although it was not possible to assess the relative importance of each within an RDP, either
in terms of budget allocations or uptake. For the 81 RDPs in ‘continental’ Europe, the nine
most widely represented categories of management actions are the management of grass
and semi-natural forage (95 per cent of RDPs), input management (91 per cent),
management plans and record keeping (79 per cent) management of soil cover (79 per cent)
and soil management (69 per cent), buffer strips (64 per cent), crop management (60 per
cent) and landscape feature management (58 per cent). The least well represented is
training which occurs as a component of agri-environment schemes in only a few RDPs (15
per cent), although it is possible that relevant training may be provided separately under
Axis 1 measures. Agri-environment schemes in the EU-12 Member States contain on
average fewer types of action than those from the EU-15, with management plans and
record keeping and soil management less well represented and crop management slightly
more prominent. However the range in number of types of action per RDP, from five to
more than 25, is striking in both groups and varies even between regions of federal Member
States. The balance types of management actions present within RDPs appear to be largely
independent of broad bio-climatic regions in continental Europe, but may this may simply
be because the resolution is too coarse to identify climatic differences influencing the choice
of management actions at the RDP level. Of the nine outermost regions of the EU, seven
have RDPs. Despite their very different farming systems, all include entry-level agrienvironment actions to restrict inputs and manage landscape features, and across the seven
almost all of the 15 categories are represented, with the exception only of management for
wildlife and taking or maintaining land out of production.
The ten most significant categories of management actions, in terms of presence with EU-27
RDPs, are examined in detail, considering their distribution across the EU, the way they are
grouped within RDPs and the range of management prescriptions specified (for example,
grazing and mowing regimes, restrictions on fertiliser and other inputs, soil management
techniques and crop rotations). This analysis is illustrated by examples from individual RDPs.
Structure and context of selected entry-level agri-environment schemes
In the second stage of the study selected entry-level agri-environment schemes in ten RDPs
across seven Member States (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Poland and
iv
UK) were studied in more detail. These were chosen to represent a diversity of farm
structures, environmental problems and opportunities, biophysical and policy contexts, and
include both old (EU-15) and new (EU-12) Member States. For the latter agri-environment
implementation is relatively new and their farming sector is still in the process of phasing in
other CAP policies.
Despite this diversity there were some common environmental themes apparent in the case
studies, including the protection and management of soils, reducing diffuse pollution, and
extensive management of grasslands, and in some Member States a focus on biodiversity
protection. These were underpinned to varying extents by national or EU derived targets,
and it is clear that some entry-level schemes are the main tool for delivering key
environmental policies at national level. In all but one of the case studies entry-level
schemes were delivered within a programme that also included higher-level schemes. The
choice offered to farmers ranged from an all-compulsory entry-level scheme in Finland to a
free-choice menu in the UK. One entry-level scheme offers farmers a choice not just of agrienvironment management options, but also of forestry and Axis 1 and 3 options too. The
relative importance of agri-environment schemes within the RDPs also varies considerably.
At farm and institutional level the agri-environment schemes operate alongside other CAP
income streams, of which the most closely related are LFA (natural handicap) payments and
Article 68 environmental payments under Pillar 1. The Natura 2000 measure is not widely
used in the countries studies, but a few agri-environment programmes have entry-level
management packages targeted at Natura 2000 habitats and species, for example farmland
birds in England and high nature value (HNV) grasslands in Bulgaria.
The reference level, payments rates and factors affecting uptake
The study examined the dynamics of the relationship between the reference level and
entry-level agri-environment requirements in the case studies. The reference level includes
EU and national or regional legislation, and cross-compliance standards defined at RDP level
within an EU-wide framework. It is evident that in some places the reference level is
changing quite frequently, even within the current programming period, necessitating
changes in the associated entry-level agri-environment schemes and payment rates. Other
reasons for altering agri-environment schemes may be aimed at improving environmental
impact or uptake.
In the next programming period the reference level for agri-environment schemes is likely
to include new ‘green’ payments in Pillar 1, covering several types of management action
already widely used in entry-level schemes. This may require changes to some current
schemes, especially those targeted at intensive arable cropping systems.
Member States have developed several variations and refinements of the payment rates for
entry-level schemes within the rather simple calculation formula set by the EU Regulation
(income foregone plus costs incurred and transaction costs, if justified). These differences
seem to be influenced partly by previous experience of agri-environment programmes. In
some cases payment rates are set at considerably less than the full net cost of the entrylevel management required, and most of the case study countries did not use transaction
costs for the schemes studied.
v
At farm level the different payment structures include payments per hectare of land
managed, or for the whole farmed area; some payments are flat rate, others are degressive
or capped as the area increases. There were several examples of efforts to improve
environmental cost-effectiveness of entry-level schemes through targeting and
differentiation of both management actions and payment rates, for example by type of
farming system, soils, environmental features or geographical zones.
The relationship between payments rates and uptake seems to be quite complex and the
effects are not always easily predicted. The most important factor influencing uptake of
entry-level schemes appears to be farmers’ perceptions of the extent to which the required
management action is already in place, or can be adopted without significant disruption to
the farm business. In some extensive livestock systems the additional, relatively secure agrienvironment income can help to protect environmental benefits from changes driven by
external economic factors such as fluctuating markets.
In one of the case studies major administrative problems have seriously affected the uptake
of a well-designed new entry-level scheme, and undermined the confidence of farmers who
had been anticipating much needed support for HNV grassland management.
The process of designing and revising entry-level agri-environment schemes
All the schemes studied built upon previous agri-environment experience, although the
extent of this varied considerably. Where pilot schemes had been used these were seen as
an opportunity to test the delivery process and farmers’ reactions, not just the management
actions. Scheme design was usually a negotiated process under the control of the managing
authorities, involving a wide range of actors and sources of evidence, and seen as a valuable
learning opportunity for those involved. National systems of feedback and review in the
early stages of delivery were used to refine and adjust schemes and in some cases reference
levels too.
Farmer support networks and farmers’ attitudes
Effective farmer support networks can make a significant contribution to the effective
delivery of entry-level agri-environment schemes, but only if the source of advice is seen by
farmers as trustworthy and relevant to their broader farming operations. Relatively little use
is made of advice which the farmer has to pay for, and free technical support from a range
of different providers can be useful but is not consistently available in all schemes. The
characteristics of effective support networks are identified and illustrated with examples
from the case studies.
There is little empirical evidence on the effect of entry-level participation on farmers’
environmental awareness or behaviour, and this is an area that would merit further
research. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are benefits from engaging farmers in the
process of designing entry-level schemes, improving their understanding of the purposes of
the schemes and providing them with feedback on environmental achievements of the
schemes.
vi
Conclusions and recommendations
This study has shown that entry-level management actions are included in the agrienvironment programmes of all 88 RDPs, are applicable to all farming systems, and have the
capacity to deliver multiple environmental objectives of importance at EU level. The extent
to which this potential is met depends not just on the type of management actions within
entry-level schemes, but how they are differentiated and targeted to meet local
circumstances and, crucially, on the effective implementation by a significant proportion of
farmers in the most appropriate locations. If this can be achieved, even quite small
incremental increases in environmental management may have a cumulative effect at a
landscape scale. These schemes also provide an opportunity to introduce farmers to the
principles and practice of environmental land management.
In the context of other CAP policies, entry-level agri-environment schemes:
 provide an incentive for positive environmental management and a basis for higherlevel agri-environment schemes;
 can both improve current levels of environmental management, and maintain
environmentally appropriate land management that is threatened by external
factors;
 should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a integrated package of support,
including LFA and other RDP measures;
 can target regional environmental priorities by building upon the environmental
foundation provided by the proposed Pillar 1 ‘greening’ measures.
In the design and revision of agri-environment programmes:
 targeted and differentiated entry-level requirements and payments could incentivise
uptake of environmentally beneficial management, taking advantage of available
and emerging technologies to do so cost-effectively;
 guidance on transaction costs may need to be revised;
 farm advisory and support services have a critical role; one possibility would be to
extend Farm Advisory Services to cover agri-environment advice;
 including agri-environment training within entry-level schemes could be of benefit;
 Involving farmers in scheme design and review processes, and providing them with
feedback on environmental impacts can improve capacity building, understanding
and uptake.
 small-scale pilot testing and evaluation of entry-level schemes or management
actions could improve efficiency, acceptance and delivery;
 ‘fast track’ internal review processes during the first two years of a scheme provide
an effective way of resolving problems.
vii
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Framing the study
Agri-environment policy is one of the most established policy mechanisms within the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Originally targeted mainly at mitigating the
environmental impacts of agricultural intensification, it now has a key role in addressing the
Community’s environmental priorities across the diversity of environmental situations,
agricultural structures and types of farming in the EU-27. First introduced in 1985 as a
voluntary measure for Member States, it has gradually assumed greater prominence within
the CAP and since 1992 has been the only compulsory measure within rural development
policy.
Agri-environment programmes are designed and implemented at Member State or regional
level within the context of the 88 Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in the EU-27, and
typically include a combination of entry-level and higher level schemes, and both horizontal
and zonal coverage. Agri-environment schemes do not exist in isolation, operating above an
environmental baseline (reference level) and alongside other Pillar 2 payments and state
aids; most farmers also receive decoupled Pillar 1 income support payments. During the
course of this study the Commission published draft legislation for a significant reform of
the CAP1, including proposals for ‘greening ’ Pillar 1 direct payments. Some of the proposed
greening elements are implemented currently as entry-level agri-environment management
requirements within Pillar 2 in some Member States.
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the nature, diversity, design
and operation of the entry-level elements of agri-environment schemes throughout the EU27. To date there have been no systematic studies at EU level specifically of entry-level agrienvironment schemes, nor any attempt to provide a comprehensive typology of their
requirements or to examine the diversity of relationships between the reference level, basic
agri-environment requirements and payments.
1.2 Defining entry-level agri-environment management
Member States and regions have taken many different approaches to implementing the
agri-environment measure, reflecting amongst other factors political priorities, climatic
variations, vulnerability to drought or soil erosion, characteristic farming systems and
practices, habitats and features of farmland, environmental risks and priorities, and sociocultural differences in attitudes to the environment and to the role of farmers.
The resulting diversity of agri-environment schemes (of which the entry-level components
form only a part) tend to differ in the scope and ambition of the environmental objectives;
the farm management required (for example, maintenance of habitats and features, or
enhancement, restoration and creation); the territorial coverage of the scheme, which may
be open to all farmers across the territory or targeted at particular zones, habitats or farm
1
The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future
(COM(2010) 672 final)
1
types; the relative level of resources allocated; and the eligibility criteria, which include a
competitive element in some Member States.
In principle, the environmental reference level in the Member State or region is the baseline
that determines what can and cannot be paid for by an agri-environment scheme. Above
this baseline many different types of farm-level management requirements can be defined,
of which the more basic can be described as ‘entry-level’ and the more demanding as
‘higher-level’. Member States structure their agri-environment programmes in many
different ways, often with entry-level and higher-level requirements in separate schemes,
but sometimes including both within the same scheme.
There is no standard EU definition of entry-level agri-environment schemes or management
requirements. For this study ‘entry-level’ is defined as:
 management requirements that sit relatively close to the reference level;
 not requiring significant change to the system of farming and achievable by most of
the target farmers by:
o adjusting certain farming practices; or
o continuing existing management that maintains environmental resources
which might otherwise be under threat;
 targeted at the majority of land and farms within a defined area, or of a specified
type;
 flat rate payments (which maybe degressive) and few associated non-productive
investments;
 a relatively simple, non-competitive application process and desk-based approval
process.
This study is concerned with the content, structure and design of entry-level agrienvironment support, and it does not attempt to measure or evaluate the environmental
impact of that support. The scope of the study excludes higher-level agri-environment
management, such as the creation or restoration of landscape features and habitats, and
the conservation of genetic diversity; it also excludes organic farming and integrated
production because these involve changes the whole farming system.
1.3 Approach to the study and structure of this report
As a first step, the study developed a typology of entry-level agri-environment management
in the EU-27, based on detailed information extracted from all the 2007-13 RDPs, including
those for the outermost regions. This EU-27 typology is presented and discussed in Chapter
2, followed by a comparative analysis of the different types of entry-level management
actions across EU-27 and an examination of the way in which these are grouped within agrienvironment schemes (Chapter 3).
The remainder of the study focusses on the design and implementation of selected entrylevel agri-environment schemes in ten RDPs from seven Member States shown in Figure 1.1
(Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Poland and the UK), considering first the
regional environmental context within which these schemes operate (Chapter 4) then
examining the dynamic relationship between the reference level, the structure of entrylevel schemes, payment rates and uptake (Chapter 5). This is followed by a review of the
2
way in which the design, revision and improvement of entry-level elements of agrienvironment schemes is approached (Chapter 6) and of the role of farmer support networks
and the effect that participation in entry-level schemes has on farmers’ attitudes to the
environment (Chapter 7). The conclusions of the study and recommendations for design and
implementation of entry-level agri-environment schemes are presented in Chapter 8.
Figure 1.1: The ten case study RDPs
3
2
A TYPOLOGY OF ENTRY-LEVEL AGRI-ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT IN THE EU-27
There is a very large range of different types of management that are included within the
entry level components of agri-environment schemes in the EU-27, each of which can help
deliver a number of environmental objectives. Some means of synthesising this information
is needed, therefore, to facilitate a better understanding of the nature of the entry-level
management that is supported in different countries, and the potential contribution of this
to different environmental objectives.
A number of typologies of EU agri-environment schemes have been published in the past,
but none looked specifically at the full range of entry-level management actions found in all
agri-environment schemes in the EU and their associated environmental objectives. A new
typology has therefore been developed for the specific purposes of this study.
This chapter describes the process of developing this typology, and uses it to examine the
potential environmental contribution made by different types of entry-level management.
2.1 Purpose and development of the typology
A review of the typologies that have previously been published on EU agri-environment
schemes showed that none focussed specifically on entry-level agri-environment
management actions or schemes, nor did they offer a typology based on the full range of
agri-environment schemes being implemented in all regions of the EU-27. Rather they tend
to fall into one of two main categories. Either they focus on very small sample sizes in order
to examine the design, implementation and effectiveness of specific agri-environment
management actions in detail (see, for example, Bonnieux et al, 2006) or they focus more
generally on agri-environment schemes, allowing for a general overview of their application
across Member States, but lacking sufficient detail to identify the different types of
management supported, and whether this is entry-level or more demanding in nature (see
for example Oréade Brèche, 2005). A more detailed description of previous agrienvironment typologies can be found in Annex 1.
To examine entry-level management across the EU-27 agri-environment programmes for
2007-13 and the degree to which this management has the potential to deliver different
environmental objectives, a new typology was therefore required. Two types of information
were needed to construct the typology - a classification of the different types of entry-level
management in 88 RDPs, and the range of environmental objectives which potentially
benefit from this management.
2.1.1 Identifying entry-level management actions
Information on the entry level management actions from all 88 RDPs was sourced from the
most up to date versions of the RDPs available in early 20112, supplemented by ‘scheme’
literature available on the website of European Network for Rural Development3 or from the
national and regional websites of the agri-environment delivery agencies.
2
These included revisions during 2009/2010 in response to the changes resulting from the CAP Health
Check.
3 http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/home-page_en.cfm
4
An Excel based database was created to collate the information gathered from the RDPs.
This included, for each of the 88 RDPs, the agri-environment schemes, how these are
presented as distinct packages or in menus, their constituent management actions and,
most importantly, the detailed requirements of each management action. The database was
also populated with summary information inferred from the RDPs and other sources,
including the main farming system to which a scheme or type of management action is
applicable and the main bio-climatic region of the Member State or region.
One of the largest challenges in extracting information was the translation of the RDP texts
to ensure that the subtleties of certain types of management action were reflected
accurately. In addition, although most RDPs follow a common structure, there is a high
degree of variation in the way Member States or regions have approached the layout of
each measure fiche. In some cases the layout was well structured with management actions
in tables and clearly grouped into different schemes or sub schemes. However, in a number
of cases the layout of the information followed a narrative structure, making the extraction
of information more difficult.
The classification of several thousand recorded entry-level management actions into
different types was done through an iterative, bottom-up process of grouping like with like,
using the details of management actions recorded in the database. This was felt to be the
most meaningful and objective way of categorising the range of management actions
extracted from the RDPs, and preferable to the more subjective approach of simply
allocating management actions to a pre-determined a list of types.
The output of this analysis was a classification of 63 different types of entry-level
management action, which in turn were grouped into 15 broader categories where the
types of action are similar, or share a common focus or aim. For example limits to
application of fertilisers, plant protection products or lime were grouped under the category
of input management. Similarly, grass cover in permanent crops and green or vegetative
cover on arable land were grouped under the category of soil cover4. All the 63 types are
listed in Box 2.1, in descending order of frequency of occurrence of the categories within
agri-environment schemes in all 88 RDPs5. It must be emphasised that this is a subjective,
analytical categorisation for the purposes of this study, and is not intended to represent the
way in which actions are packaged and delivered within agri-environment schemes.
Box 2.1: The 63 types and 15 categories of entry-level management action in the EU-27
RDPs
4
A number of actions were found that could not be grouped or occurred in only one RDP and have not been
included in the typology or analysis. These are: fencing; improve visual appearance of farm; install
bird/boxes; maintain bracken; no fences; no mineral extraction; remediation; removal of plastic waste;
restricted access; vehicle use; crop management (other); grassland management (other), soil management
(other); no mechanical weed control; no mulching; no ploughing-in of crops; no hunting.
5 Frequency of occurrence simply means presence/absence within an RDP, and does not reflect how significant
the category is within the RDP.
5
Management of grass and semi-natural forage: maintain permanent pasture; traditional management (grass);
grazing regime; restriction on peat cutting; no grazing; no machinery; control of scrub or invasive species;
control of burning; restricted management dates (grass); shepherding; hay making; no cutting; cutting regime;
specified grass or seeding regime.
Input management: no fertiliser; limits to fertiliser or specified regimes; no plant protection products (PPP);
limits to PPP or specified regimes; no lime; limits to lime or specified regimes; no growth regulator.
Management plans and record keeping: management plans (general, grazing, and input); record keeping;
analysis.
Soil cover: grass cover in permanent crops; green or vegetative cover; over winter stubbles; mulching regime.
Soil management: erosion prevention strips; no tillage; tillage regime; run-off furrows; ploughing-in of crop.
Buffer strips: riparian buffer strip; non-riparian buffer strip.
Crop management: fallow; traditional management (crop); rotation with legumes; rotation; maintenance of
traditional orchards; spring sown cereals; restricted management dates (crop); no burning of straw, stubble or
cut residue; pruning regime; specified crop varieties and/or seeding regime; restricted management times;
harvesting regime.
Landscape feature management: management of water features; management of non-aquatic landscape
features.
Management for wildlife: strips or patches for wildlife; in field fallow patch for wildlife; sacrificial food crops
for wildlife.
Water level management: water level management.
Non-chemical crop protection: mechanical or manual weed control; mechanical pest control; biological pest
control.
Land out of production: maintain area of land out of production; take land out of production.
Apiculture: apiculture.
Irrigation management: irrigation management; no irrigation.
Training: training.
Source: Own classification based on information extracted from national and regional Rural Development
Programmes 2007-2013 (versions available in early 2011).
2.1.2 Environmental objectives
Nine environmental objectives were selected against which to analyse the 63 types of entrylevel management actions for the purpose of developing the typology. These are: farmland
biodiversity; agricultural landscapes; water quality; water availability; soil functionality;
climate change mitigation; climate change adaptation; resilience to flooding; and resilience
to fire. These were derived from a combination of two different sources, the Community
Strategic Guidelines for Axis 26 and previous studies of environmental public goods and
agriculture7.
The potential contribution that different types of management action make to the
achievement of environmental objectives is often context specific and depends upon a
range of factors, such as how and where the management is implemented and the level of
uptake across a region or target area. Understanding the principal objective of management
actions, either individually or packaged together within schemes, is not straightforward. This
is partly due to the inherent multi-objectivity of the management actions themselves, but
also because the objectives are not always articulated explicitly within the description of the
agri-environment schemes within the RDPs, or at the required level of detail. Therefore it
6
Council Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development
(programming period 2007 to 2013). Official Journal of the European Union 55/20, 20.2.2006.
7 For example Hart et al, 2011a and Cooper et al, 2009
6
has not been possible within the scope of this study to infer the primary objective of each
type of management action within its RDP context, but simply to assess which types of
actions have the potential to contribute to which environmental objectives. This assessment
was based on expert judgement, supplemented by information drawn from previous studies
(for example Cooper et al, 2009; Hart et al, 2011b). For the purposes of this study a series of
criteria were used to make judgements on whether the different types of agri-environment
management actions had the potential to contribute to the nine environmental objectives.
These criteria are set out in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Criteria to assess types of entry-level actions against environmental objectives
A management action is considered as contributing towards this objective
if, compared to the counterfactual, it:
improves to some degree the quantity, species diversity or conservation
Farmland biodiversity status of the flora and fauna on the land concerned, or in adjacent water
bodies
maintains or protects individual landscape elements or the characteristic
Agricultural landscapes
structure of a more traditional agricultural landscape as a whole
reduces the pressure(s) that prevent the achievement of good ecological
Water quality status for surface waters or good chemical status for ground waters as
defined by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 8
reduces the demand for irrigation or improves the availability and
Water availability
timeliness of water flows to replenish surface and groundwater systems
improves the proportion of organic matter, the level of susceptibility to
erosion by wind or water, the soil’s structure and capacity for infiltration,
Soil functionality
the health of its biota, or reduces the level or risk of contamination (after
Joint Research Centre, 2009)
makes a contribution towards reducing the net greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions attributable to that land and/or improving the capacity for
Climate change mitigation carbon sequestration or reducing carbon emissions. The effects considered
are limited to activities and biological processes within the management
area and do not take into account the full life cycles of products or inputs
maintains or improves the opportunities for semi-natural habitats and
species to adapt their range to changing climatic conditions and/or reduces
Climate change adaptation
the pressure of agricultural externalities on natural systems so that they
are more resilient to the effects of climate change
Resilience to flooding improves or increases the capacity of land to capture and store water
reduces the risk of fire starting in dry or combustible vegetation and/or
Resilience to fire
maintains features that act as firebreaks, reducing the risk of fire spreading
Source: own interpretation of Community Strategic Guidelines for Axis 2 and Cooper et al (2009).
Objective
Additional criteria were used to assess the degree of potential contribution of each type of
management action to each of the nine objectives:
 Potential direct contribution: where the implementation of the action has the
potential to contribute directly towards an objective.
 Potential indirect contribution: where the implementation of the action has the
potential to contribute indirectly towards an objective – in other words, where the
8
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
Framework for Community Action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327/1, 22.12.2000)
7


objective is not necessarily the primary focus of the action but there is clear
potential for indirect contribution.
No potential contribution: where the implementation of the action will make no
contribution towards an objective, directly or indirectly.
Potentially detrimental: where the implementation of the action has the potential
to be detrimental towards an objective.
2.2
A typology of types of entry-level management actions and environmental
objectives
The management actions and environmental objectives were then combined to produce the
typology which explores the relationship between types of entry-level management and
environmental objectives. It is structured around two axes, with the 15 categories and 63
different types of management action on one axis and the nine environmental objectives on
the other, as shown in Figure 2.1. The typology is colour coded to show the potential level of
contribution of each type of management action towards each of the environmental
objectives.
8
Management of grass and
semi natural forage
Input management
Management plans and record
keeping
Soil cover
Soil management
Buffer strips
Crop management
Landscape feature
management
Management for wildlife
Water level management
Non-chemical crop protection
Land out of production
Apiculture
Irrigation management
Training
Maintain permanent pasture
Traditional management (grass)
Grazing regime
Restriction on peat cutting
No grazing
No machinery
Scrub or invasive species control
Control of burning
Restricted management dates (grass)
Shepherding
Hay making
No cutting
Cutting regime
Specified grass or seeding regime
No fertiliser application
Limits to fertiliser application or specified regimes
No PPP
Limits to PPP or specified regimes
No lime application
Limits to lime application or specified regimes
No growth regulators
Management plan general
Management plan grazing
Management plan input
Record keeping
Analysis
Grass cover in permanent crops
Green or vegetative cover
Over winter stubbles
Mulching regime
Erosion prevention strips
No tillage
Tillage regime
Runoff furrows
Ploughing-in of crop
Riparian buffer strip
Non-riparian buffer strip
Fallow
Traditional management (crop)
Rotation with legumes
Rotation
Maintenance of traditional orchards
Spring sown cereals
Restricted management dates (crop)
No burning of straw, stubble or cut residue
Pruning regime
Specified crop varieties and/or seeding regime
Restricted management times
Harvesting regime
Management of water features
Management of non-aquatic landscape features
Strips or patches for wildlife
In field fallow patch for wildlife
Sacrificial food crops for wildlife
Water level management
Mechanical or manual weed control
Mechanical pest control
Biological pest control
Maintain area of land out of production
Take land out of production
Apiculture
Irrigation management
No irrigation
Training
9
Resilience to
flooding
Resilience to
fire
Climate change
adaptation
Climate change
mitigation
Management actions
Water
availability
Soil
functionality
Category of management action
Potentially detrimental
Water quality
Potential indirect contribution
Farmland
biodiversity
Agricultural
landscapes
Figure 2.1: Typology of types of entry-level agri-environment management actions and environmental objectives
KEY
Potential direct contribution
No potential contribution
The typology shows clearly that all types of entry-level management actions have the
potential to contribute (directly or indirectly) towards multiple environmental objectives.
For example, addressing water quality through more effective input management and the
use of buffer strips also has the potential to contribute towards soil functionality and
provide space for biodiversity. It is important again to stress that the extent to which actions
have the potential to contribute towards these objectives often depends on the way in
which they are implemented, where they are located and the extent of uptake in any given
location.
Despite the inherent multi-objectivity of all types of entry-level actions, some have the
potential to contribute towards more objectives than others. Seven of the 15 categories
include at least one type of management action with the potential to contribute directly or
indirectly to all nine objectives (these are the maintenance of permanent pasture,
traditional management (crops and grass)t, management of water features, water level
management, fallow, and taking and maintaining land out of production, together with the
non-land-based management plans and record keeping and training). By contrast, sacrificial
crops for wildlife has the potential to contribute towards only two of the nine objectives.
Actions which involve managing or creating areas that are not used directly for production 9
generally have the potential to contribute towards more objectives than those where
environmental management is carried out in close conjunction with crop production.
However, there are some notable exceptions to this. For example, the categories of
traditional management, green soil cover and grass cover in permanent crops are all closely
linked to production but also have the potential to contribute to almost all of the objectives.
The training of farmers and farm workers in environmental land management has the
potential to support all the objectives, although this of course depends on the scope of the
training.
Those actions with the potential to contribute towards the fewest environmental objectives
(only two or three) contribute mainly towards farmland biodiversity, climate change
adaptation, and agricultural landscapes10.
Certain environmental objectives potentially benefit from a wider range of types of entrylevel management actions than others, as Figure 2.2 shows. A large proportion of all types
of entry-level actions from all categories have the potential to contribute towards farmland
biodiversity and climate change adaptation. This is due in part to the fact that both these
9
Including areas that are never used for production (for example hedgerows, water features); areas that are
temporarily not used for production (for example strips or patches for wildlife, fallow, land out of
production); and areas which can in some cases be used for production but where conventional activities are
limited (for example buffer strips).
10
The following types of actions have the potential to contribute towards three or fewer objectives: sacrificial
food crops for wildlife, hay making, no cutting, apiculture, cutting regime, specified seed regime (grass), in
field fallow patches for wildlife, specified crop varieties and/or seeding regime, restricted management
times (crops), no growth regulators, and harvesting regimes.
10
objectives are affected by a wide range of different environmental pressures and thus
benefit from an equally wide range of types of management, directly or indirectly. In
contrast, although soil functionality benefits from more than half of the 63 types of action,
most of the direct benefits are associated with a narrower range of categories, those
concerned specifically with the management of soils, inputs, buffer strips, water, irrigation
and land out of production.
Figure 2.2: Number of types of entry-level management actions with the potential to
contribute towards the nine environmental objectives
Fewer types of entry-level management actions (25 of the 63) have the potential to
contribute directly to the agricultural landscape objective - not just those for landscape
feature management (of ditches, hedgerows, infield trees and stone walls for example) but
also actions from other categories such as management of grass and semi-natural forage,
crop management, soil cover and buffer strip (for example cutting, grazing, and pruning
regimes, fallow and traditional management practices). A similar number of actions but
from a slightly different range of categories potentially contribute towards water quality,
particularly those aimed at input management, soil cover and soil management. The climate
change mitigation objective potentially benefits directly from just under 20 actions within
several different categories, including all types of soil cover and management and buffer
strips.
Not many of the 63 types of entry-level management actions have the potential to
contribute towards resilience to flooding, and even fewer to resilience to fire. Types of
actions common to both objectives include the introduction and management of buffer
strips and erosion prevention strips, the maintenance of permanent pasture and the
management of water features because these can improve infiltration rates or slow the
spread of floodwater, and also act as firebreaks. The presence of vegetation (for example
11
green cover and landscape features) may contribute towards improving resilience to
flooding, whereas limiting the growth of vegetation can reduce combustible material (for
example by scrub control or grazing regimes) and may contribute towards increasing
resilience to fire. Very few types of entry-level actions have the potential to contribute to
water availability. Those that do include irrigation management, water level management,
green cover, fallow and taking or maintaining land out of production.
In assessing the potential contribution of actions to objectives it is apparent that some types
of entry-level management actions, if carried out in the wrong locations or implemented
poorly, have the potential to be detrimental towards some environmental objectives. Only a
few instances were found, with the resilience to fire being the objective most affected. The
lack of grazing or cutting grass and semi-natural forage, as well as certain mulching regimes
could allow the build up of combustible material, which in some circumstances might allow
wildfire to spread. This is likely to be a concern only in systems and regions that are
naturally subject to wildfire or in particularly arid conditions, and the risks are likely to be
localised. Actions involving burning have the potential for detrimental impact on the
greatest number of objectives including water quality, soil functionality, and climate change
mitigation. Controlled burning of vegetation can leave soils exposed, for example vulnerable
soils on heather moorland, and increase the likelihood of surface run off, but again the risks
are likely to be localised. Scrub control also has the potential for detrimental impact on
climate change mitigation, because removing woody vegetation may reduce capacity for
carbon sequestration.
This typology uses a subjective categorisation of management actions for the purpose of
analysis, but within agri-environment schemes management actions are often grouped
together and presented quite differently, for example in ‘packages’ of multiple actions
linked to a specific payment under the scheme. Such grouping of actions may enhance their
potential contribution to the range of environmental objectives. Equally, the way in which
actions and packages of actions are implemented and targeted can also influence the level
of contribution towards different objectives.
Chapter 3 discusses in more detail the different types of entry-level management actions
and the categories to which they were assigned for analysis, where they are found in
different RDPs, which farming systems they apply to, and how they are packaged together
within agri-environment schemes.
12
3
COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
OF
EU-27
ENTRY-LEVEL
AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
This section provides an overview of the distribution of the different categories of
management actions identified in the typology across the EU-27 alongside an outline of the
range and types of management actions found within the most commonly occurring
categories. It then examines in more detail the use of specific types of management actions
within agri-environment schemes in different regions and how they are combined into
packages. The seven RDPs for the outermost regions are analysed and discussed separately
from those for the ‘continental’ part of the EU.
3.1 Qualitative overview of entry-level management actions in the EU-27 RDPs
The typology in Chapter 2 covers 63 different types of entry-level management action,
grouped into 15 different categories, as shown in Box 2.1 and Figure 2.1. These categories
vary in character, the breadth of farming systems to which they apply, and in the number of
management actions they contain.
For the 81 RDPs in continental Europe, the nine most widely represented categories of
management actions are the management of grass and semi-natural forage (95 per cent of
RDPs), input management (91 per cent), management plans and record keeping (79 per
cent) management of soil cover (79 per cent) and soil management (69 per cent), buffer
strips (64 per cent), crop management (60 per cent) and landscape feature management (58
per cent). Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of the different categories of management
action within agri-environment schemes in continental Europe and how this differs between
the EU-12 and EU-15 groups of RDPs.
The categories that are least well represented within agri-environment schemes across the
EU-27 include water level management (38 per cent) through to training which is only
present as an agri-environment action in a few RDPs (15 per cent), although elsewhere it
may be provided under Axis 1 measures rather than integrated into agri-environment
schemes.
Figure 3.1 shows that no one category of management actions occurs in every continental
RDP. In the case of management of grass and semi-natural forage, for example, reasons for
the absence of this category in an agri-environment scheme may be that the focus is
primarily on the environmental management of arable land (for example in Sachsen,
Germany) or because the management of grass is covered under organic or integrated
production systems (for example in Navarra, Spain), which have been excluded from this
study. The distributions of individual categories of management action are examined in
more detail below.
13
Figure 3.1: Proportion of the EU-27 (continental), EU-15 and EU-12 RDPs containing each
of the 15 different categories of management actions
Source: Own calculations based on the typology
All categories of action are present in both the EU-12 and EU-15 groups of RDPs, with the
exception of irrigation management, present only in EU-15 agri-environment schemes.
However there are differences between new and old Member States in terms of the
proportion of RDPs in which individual categories are found. Whereas the EU-15 RDPs follow
the EU-27 distribution described above, the EU-12 RDPs do not, as Figure 3.1 shows. In the
new Member States the two most widely represented categories of management actions
are the same as those for the EU-15 - the management of grass and semi-natural forage and
input management, found in 83 per cent of EU-12 RDPs. Management plans and record
keeping and soil management are not as widely represented as in the EU-15, occurring in
not more than half of the EU-12 RDPs, while crop management is more prevalent in EU-12
than EU-15. Six other categories (water level management, non-chemical crop protection,
land out of production, apiculture, training and management for wildlife) occur in no more
than a third of the EU-12 RDPs.
Some RDPs contain types of actions from a smaller number of categories than others. For
example in Hungary and the Abruzzo, Basilicata and Valle d'Aosta regions of Italy only six of
the 15 categories of management actions are represented. These are management of grass
and semi-natural forage, input management, management plans and record keeping, buffer
strips, crop management, and management for wildlife. Whereas in the RDPs for England
(UK), Flanders (Belgium), Corsica (France) and Basque Country (Spain) a much wider range
of categories are found, for example 13 different categories in the case of the Basque
Country.
14
Overall the balance of types and categories of management actions present within the RDPs
appear to be largely independent of bio-climatic regions (see Table A3.1 and Figure A3.1,
Annex 3). Given that the bio-climatic information is inferred, the lack of associated patterns
may simply be because the resolution is too coarse to identify climatic differences that
affect the choice of management actions at a local level. The only notable relationship
between management actions and bioclimatic region relates to apiculture. This category has
a particularly high presence in Mediterranean RDPs and is completely absent from the
Boreal region. Within Mediterranean RDPs the majority of occurrences are in Spain (plus
one in Corsica and one in Malta). Apiculture is also found in the Atlantic region, mainly in
the north and west of Spain.
3.2 Types of management action within the broad categories
In agri-environment programmes the types of management actions identified in this study
are not usually ‘stand-alone’ options for farmers to choose, nor are they likely to be grouped
together within agri-environment schemes in the analytical categories used for the typology
(the buffer strips and landscape feature management categories are exceptions). This
section looks in more detail at some of the different categories of management actions
found in RDPs, examining in more detail where specific types of action are used and how
they are grouped together within the 81 continental RDPs (the outermost regions are
considered separately, given their geographic distance from continental Europe and their
different bio-climatic and farming conditions). Detailed examples of all 63 types of
management actions are provided in Annex 2.
3.2.1 Management actions found within individual RDPs
Moving from the overarching categories of management actions to a consideration of the
distribution of the 63 individual types of management action, it is evident that there is
considerable variation in both the number and type of management actions found within
agri-environment schemes in different RDPs. Fewer than five of the possible 63 different
types of management action are included within agri-environment schemes in some
regions11 compared to more than 25 in others12, with an average of 15 per RDP. Figure 3.2
shows the number of different types of management actions found within each of the 81
continental RDPs. Compared to the EU-15 RDPs, the agri-environment programmes of the
EU-12 Member States contain on average fewer types of action (only three of them have 15
actions or more), although the range is striking in both groups and varies even between
regions of federal Member States. This may partly reflect the extent of support for organic
or integrated farming, which in some Member States (for example Italy) is a significant
element of the agri-environment programme, but is not covered by this study.
11 Hungary, Malta, Latvia, Cyprus and the Italian regions of Arbruzzo, Basilicata, Valle d’Aosta, and Liguria.
12
Slovenia, the Netherlands, the Corsican region of France, the Catalunya, and Basque country regions of
Spain; and the Scottish, English and Northern Ireland regions of the UK
15
AT
BE (WA)
Be (Fl)
BG
CY
CZ
DE (Bra/Be)
DE (SA)
DE (Sac)
DE (Bw)
DE (He)
DE (MV)
DE (SH)
DE (Ha)
DE (Saa)
DE (RP)
DE (NW)
DE (Th)
DE (Ba)
DE (Ni/B)
DK
EE
EL
ES (Cant)
ES (Bl)
ES (GA)
ES (Mu)
ES (ex)
ES (Va)
ES (Na)
ES (AR)
ES (LaR)
ES (As)
ES (Ma)
ES (CyL)
ES (an)
ES (ClM)
ES (BC)
ES (Cat)
FI
FI (Al)
FR
FR (Co)
HU
IE
IT (VdA)
IT (Ab)
IT (Bas)
IT (Li)
IT (Ma)
IT (Cal)
IT (Cam)
IT (Pu)
IT (Mo)
IT (pi)
IT (To)
IT (Sa)
IT (La)
IT (Lo)
IT (Si)
IT (Tr)
IT (Bo)
IT (FVG)
IT (ER)
IT (Um)
IT (Ve)
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK (W)
UK (NI)
UK (Sc)
UK (EN)
Number odifferent types of management action
Figure 3.2: Number of different types of management action within each RDP
40
KEY
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
AT BE BG CY CZ
EU-12 Member States
DE
DK EE EL
ES
EU-27C Rural Development Programmes
FI
EU-15 Member States
16
FR HU IE
IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK
UK
3.2.2 Management of grass and semi-natural forage
The management of grass and semi-natural forage is the most commonly occurring
category, found in 77 of the 81 RDPs13. It is also the category that covers most individual
types of actions, 16 in total, including requirements to maintain areas of permanent
pasture, upper and lower limits to grazing intensity, restrictions on burning of vegetation, as
well as wildlife-friendly cutting regimes and hay making. The widespread inclusion of this
category can be partly explained by the fact that it covers not just management applicable
to permanent pasture and semi-natural forage areas, but also management of grass leys
within arable rotations, as well as wooded pastures. This range of actions does not include
the management of grass on specific features such as buffer strips or strips or patches for
wildlife, which are covered in other categories of the typology.
Grazing regimes for livestock are the most common type of management actions within the
category, closely followed by cutting regimes (73 and 58 RDPs respectively). Within agrienvironment schemes of the EU-12 RDPs both are commonly found together, but their
relative importance varies. For example, in the Czech Republic with very large farms and
fields more emphasis is placed on mowing as a means of maintaining grass systems, but in
Slovenia, with its high proportion of mountain pastures, grazing regimes feature more
prominently (Annex 2). With a few exceptions, agri-environment schemes in the EU-15
RDPs, in contrast to those in the EU-12, tend to favour grazing over cutting regimes (63
compared to 46 RPDs) for the agri-environment management of grassland. Grazing regimes
are not found in two RDPs (Sachsen, Germany and Navarra, Spain).
The environmental objectives of grazing regimes are not always clear from the RDPs, but the
preservation of local biodiversity is the most apparent. Grazing regimes typically specify
limits for stocking densities, seasons at which livestock are allowed to graze and, in some
cases, define the type of livestock to be used14. Stocking densities may be set as an upper
limit, or as a range with a lower limit also defined. Minimum densities vary from 0.1
livestock units per hectare (LU/ha) in Andalucía, Spain to 1LU/ha in Piedmont, Italy with
maximum allowed densities ranging from 1LU/ha in Andalucía, Spain up to 2.5LU/ha in
Hamburg, Germany (this figure is particularly high, and is just for seasonal grazing between
July and November). Two livestock units per hectare is the more commonly specified
maximum, present in 12 RDPs. This range is perhaps unsurprising given the different
climates, soil types and seasonal variations across the EU, which means that different types
of land will have different environmental carrying capacities. For the same reasons cutting
regimes can have a range of requirements, including the number and orientation of cuts
(such as from the centre to edge of the field), the earliest date at which mowing starts
(often in mid June), how much of the parcel can be cut at any one time, the minimum height
of sward to be left and the removal of the cut material.
13
The four RDPs without any grassland management actions are mostly in the Mediterranean (Cyprus, Malta,
and Navarra (Spain)) but the fourth is much further north, in eastern Germany (Sachsen)
14
Packages and actions exclusively aimed at genetic conservation and the use of rare breeds were not
included in this analysis. However, some grazing regimes do specify the type of grazing animal to be used.
17
Within agri-environment schemes, grazing regimes are invariably delivered as part of
packages that include other actions from this category (such as maintenance of permanent
pasture, scrub control, no burning) and also from other categories (for example limits to
fertilisers and other inputs, to tillage and other mechanical processes that might affect soil
structure). Cutting and grazing regimes may be packaged together or delivered separately,
and a single RDP may have more than one package for the management of grassland and
semi-natural forage.
3.2.3 Input management
The second most common category found across all RDPs and farming systems relates to
input management and consists of seven actions concerned with the appropriate
application, reduction, or prohibition of agrochemical and other inputs to agricultural land 15.
Alternative means of addressing issues associated with high inputs, such as the control of
weeds through mechanical means are not covered here, but within the non-chemical crop
protection category. The restriction or management of inputs on agricultural land is a
commonly used group of management actions within agri-environment schemes and is
applied widely across all farming systems and in both EU-12 and EU-15 RDPs. The only
exception is limits to lime application, stipulated in only a few RDPS in the EU-15 (for
example Sweden). There are a small number of RDPs that do not appear to contain any
specific actions aimed at reducing inputs, including Hungary, Cyprus, Spain (Galicia and
Navarra), and Italy (Basilicata and Marche) (Annex 2). It could be that these regions utilise
other types of actions to control inputs, such as integrated or organic management (not
considered as an entry-level management action for the purposes of this study) or, as is the
case in Cyprus, through mechanical operations.
The two most common actions in the category are the reduction (or appropriate use) of
fertilisers and plant protection products (PPPs) both of which are often found together in
packages of actions (30 RDPs). Less frequently covered inputs include lime and growth
regulators along with more specific elements such as copper (Slovenia). Input management
actions are found together with other actions in packages designed to address a range of
issues from the specific, such as wildlife management focussing on biodiversity objectives in
Poland, to the more general, such as environmentally friendly management covering a
range of different environmental objectives, in Luxembourg (Annex 2). In some cases the
reduction of inputs is itself the aim of the package with input management combined with
requirements to analyse soil samples and keep records (for example Austria).
The different levels of fertiliser inputs allowed vary significantly between RDPs, even within
Member States, as do the detailed requirements surrounding their use (including the scale,
type of land and dates at which they can be applied) making the comparison of maxima and
minima problematic. In contrast, the level of PPP application is rarely specified, instead
actions refer to the need to reduce or exclude such inputs reflecting the more varied and
site-specific use of PPPs. Requirements for the method of application used also vary. For
example, to help improve soil and water quality in mainland Finland an additional top-up
15
Limits to/appropriate regimes, or the ban of fertilisers, PPPs, or lime (six actions), and the ban on growth
regulators (one action).
18
agri-environment payment is available which requires the more accurate spreading of
fertilisers on arable land, whereas in olive groves in Greece the manual application of
herbicides is required.
3.2.4 Soil cover
Management actions to increase soil cover, particularly over winter months, form the third
most common category of actions used within agri-environment schemes and apply to
arable and permanent crop systems. Four distinct actions were identified which require
varying levels of cover to soil to be provided and include green cover in permanent crops
(for example Umbria, Italy), green or vegetative cover on cropped land (for example
Poland), mulching regime (for example, Campania, Italy, and the retention of over winter
stubbles (for example, Lithuania) (Annex 2). Soil cover has been distinguished from crop
management actions for the purposes of this study because, although it takes place on
cropped land, the focus is more on covering and protecting soil rather than on the
management of the crop itself. However, because of this close association crop and soil
management actions are often found in packages of actions together. In many cases the
various forms of soil cover are packages or actions in their own right with more specific
details of the management required.
The most common requirement of all these actions is a specified period of the year during
which soil cover should be in place. For arable crops this is usually over the winter months
starting in late September and continuing until late March early April of the following year,
at which point the cover can be ploughed or removed. Where cover is required under
permanent crops the implementation dates can be much longer for example in Aragón,
Spain, natural vegetation under permanent crops should be maintained from 1 June to 28
February.
3.2.5 Soil management
Soil management actions are found in 56 RDPs. Five types of action are included within this
category, which is aimed specifically at the management and protection of soil under arable,
grassland and permanent crop systems. These are specific tillage regimes, no tillage, erosion
prevention strips, run off furrows, and the requirement to plough-in crops. In contrast to
the inclusion of such actions in a large number of agri-environment schemes within the EU15, they are not widely represented in the EU-12 being absent from seven of these RDPs.
The most widely represented actions in this category relate to no tillage (25 RDPs) or
specific tillage regimes (40 RDPs). Tillage regime is used here to describe a range of actions
where the management interacts with soil structure, for example ploughing, direct drilling
of crops and rolling. Given the variety of different tillage regimes that can be used, the way
in which these actions are implemented differs considerably in different regions. Common
examples include the requirement to plough along the contour of sloping land in Murcia,
Spain, or limits to cultivation depth in England (Annex 2). The prohibition of tillage under the
‘no tillage’ action is often found in conjunction with the management of grass and seminatural forage where certain temporary grasslands may not be ploughed between certain
dates, for example for the protection of birds in Poland (Annex 2).
19
3.2.6 Buffer strips
Buffer strips is a category of two types of management action and is found in 52 RDPs,
predominantly on arable land, and evenly distributed between the EU-12 and EU-15. Buffer
strips is can limit the damaging effects of nutrient run-off and soil erosion on neighbouring
habitats or features, and also help to protect biodiversity resources. A clear distinction is
made between riparian buffer strips for aquatic features such as natural watercourses or
ditches, and non-riparian buffer strips for features such as hedgerows. This category does
not include the creation of strips or patches for wildlife, whose main purpose is to provide
biodiversity benefits and which are often sown with specific types of plants to attract
particular species, and where the restrictions on management go beyond that needed for
protection from fertilisers and pesticides.
The absence of buffer strips in certain RDPs16 could be due to several reasons, for example
the use of alternative actions to reduce nutrient and PPP leaching and spreading (for
example limiting or prohibiting inputs), and will depend on the Member State or region
concerned. In addition, there may be other reasons for their absence, for example where
requirements for buffer strips are part of the reference level.
Buffer strips are commonly found grouped in packages with actions related to soil and water
protection (such as in Greece). Different types of buffer strip may be grouped together in
packages entirely focussed on buffer strips (such as in Wallonia, Belgium), or may form part
of a wider package of actions (such as in Estonia) (Annex 2). The required width of buffer
strips varies considerably between regions, with minimum widths ranging from 0.5m in
Greece to 10m in Denmark, and maximum widths from 20m in Denmark up to 60m in
Sweden. The most common range is between two and 10 metres.
3.2.7 Crop management
Twelve different types of actions have been identified that relate specifically to crop
management. They are applicable to cropped land, including permanent crops, and include
specified rotations (including the use of legumes and fallow), harvesting restrictions and
pruning regimes (permanent crops). Soil management and input management are not
included within this category as they can also refer to grassland and have been identified as
separate categories.
Crop management actions are found widely within agri-environment schemes (50 RDPs)
both across the EU-12 (8 RDPs) and the EU-15 (42 RDPs). Despite this wide coverage their
occurrence can vary within Member States, for example only six of the 21 Italian RDPs
include crop management actions, although this may be explained by the inclusion in these
RDPs of integrated production (not covered by this study) or other categories of
management such as soil cover (for example winter stubbles, green cover), soil
management (for example mulching or run off furrows) and input management actions. The
most common action in the crop management category relates to crop rotations, found in
16
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Germany (Brandenburg and Berlin, Baden Württemberg,
Hamburg, Rhineland Pfalz, Sachsen-Anhalt, Saarland, Schleswig Holstein), Spain (Andalucía, Astoria, Balearic
Islands, Cantabria, Castilla y Leon, Extremadura, Galicia), France, Italy (Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Liguria,
Marche, Puglia, Valle d'Aosta), and the Netherlands.
20
agri-environment schemes in 27 RDPs. Commonly the requirement is for between three and
five crop types in the rotation but this can range from two (for example Portugal) to six (for
example Thüringen, Germany) (Annex 2). Rotations are most commonly required for cereal
crops, for example in Bavaria, Germany, but can also apply to vegetable crops such as
potatoes in Cyprus. A separate action identified in 17 RDPs requires the inclusion of legumes
within crop rotations, often requiring a minimum area to be covered. However the areas
quoted do not always use comparable types of land for example five per cent of the rotated
area (Bavaria, Germany) to 10 per cent of the cultivated area (Andalucía, Spain). Both types
of crop rotation are found in packages with other types of management particularly soil
management, input management, and soil cover, although some packages focus exclusively
on establishing or maintaining diverse crop rotations for example in Bavaria and Thüringen,
Germany (Annex 2).
3.2.8 Landscape Feature Management
Actions aimed specifically at the protection and maintenance of landscape features, occur in
more than half (47) of all continental EU RDPs and are relevant to all farming systems. Their
distribution is equally widespread across new and old Member States (six and 41 RDPs
respectively). In most cases the RDPs make a clear distinction between actions that focus on
aquatic features, for example ditches and small ponds, and those which focus on nonaquatic features such as stonewalls, hedgerows, or isolated trees. Of the two types, the
latter are found in more RDPs, 45 in comparison to 26 for aquatic features.
These actions are delivered, either in packages focussed entirely on the management of
landscape features (for example Wallonia (Belgium) and Latvia) or as part of a package of
which has a broader range of objectives and includes other types of management action
such as grazing densities on grassland, limits to fertiliser application and restrictions on
tillage (for example Austria and Slovenia) (Annex 2).
In managing landscape features the farmer may be required to carry out management
between certain dates, in keeping with the style traditional to the local landscape, perform
pruning and thinning, limit or refrain from the use of PPPs and fertilisers, or simply
‘maintain’ the features present on the holding. The range of requirements varies between
RDPs and by the type of feature being managed, however there are some commonalities.
For example it is common to find restrictions on pruning or cutting hedgerows during the
bird breeding period of late spring and early summer (Annex 2).
3.2.9 Management for wildlife
This category includes three types of management actions found predominantly in arable
farming systems and aimed specifically at providing food, nesting, and breeding areas for
wildlife. Present in agri-environment schemes in just under half of all RDPs, they occur
predominantly in EU-15 with only three occurrences in EU-1217. This may reflect the longer
history of agri-environment development in the old Member States. The category excludes
other actions that also may benefit wildlife but which fall within other categories, such as
restricted management dates or cutting regimes.
17 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania
21
Management actions for wildlife commonly occur only on small areas of the overall holding,
but the size of area over which the specified management is required varies between RDPs.
For example where strips of land are managed for wildlife, usually at the edge of a field,
they range between a minimum of six metres wide (for example in England, UK) and a
maximum of 30 metres (such as in Flanders, Belgium). Some strips are required within the
field rather than at the field edge, such as beetle banks in England, and can be as narrow as
two metres in width. In some cases, for example in Austria, a minimum proportion of the
holding must be managed for wildlife as opposed to a minimum width of strip.
Although these management actions also appear in packages of measures in different
regions, there do not appear to be any particular trends in the types of actions that they are
associated with. As with buffer strips, these actions can be the focus of a package in their
own right. In such cases, they are clearly targeted at delivering biodiversity objectives and in
some cases directed at specific species, for example Skylarks (Alauda arvensis) in England or
more generically at taxa as a whole, such as flowering plants and invertebrates in
Mecklenburg Vorpommern, Germany (Annex 2).
3.2.10 Land out of production
The category of land out of production covers two actions that require a significant area of
land either to be taken or maintained out of production for a significant period of time,
usually longer than one year, but typically between two and five years. This is one of the
categories that is least represented within agri-environment schemes, appearing without
any significant pattern in only 19 RDPs, all of which are in the EU-1518, with the exception of
Bulgaria. This category does not include actions for taking smaller areas of land out of
production, for example strips or patches for wildlife, or rotational fallow, as these are
covered in the management for wildlife and crop management categories respectively.
Farmers are usually restricted from carrying out certain operations on land taken or
maintained out of production. These vary, for example in Greece farmers are required to
carry out no agricultural practices, whereas in Toscana (Italy) the farmer can mow once in
spring and again during the summer but cannot use fertilisers or PPPs, or graze or work the
land. In Bulgaria the area out of production must be continuous (non-fragmented) and must
have a one metre wide strip around perimeter that should be ploughed two or three times a
year (but not between March and July) to prevent spread of weeds into adjacent crops. In
some cases certain practices are voluntary, for example in Castilla y León (Spain), farmers
can use 50 per cent of the land out of production to plant a legume seed mixture for the
purposes of providing food for birds. These legumes cannot be harvested but can be
ploughed back in to help improve soil functionality.
Actions within this category are found predominantly in arable and grassland systems
although there are instances where they are used in permanent crop systems. For example,
in order to improve soil health (functionality) in wine growing areas in Austria, farmers are
18
Austria, Germany (Bavaria, Niedersachsen and Bremen, Rhineland Pfalz, Saarland), Greece, Spain (Basque
Country, Castilla la Mancha, Castilla y León, Navarra), France, Ireland, Italy (Emilia Romagna, Toscana,
Umbria, Venetto) and UK (Wales).
22
required to remove vines from the area but must maintain green cover on the remaining
land all year round. Taking or maintaining land out of production is commonly carried out to
improve soil functionality, water quality (for example Greece) or to benefit biodiversity (for
example Bulgaria) (Annex 2). The packages in which these types of actions are found can
also include (but not necessarily on the same area of land) reduced or no fertiliser
application, creation of buffer strips, cutting regimes and crop rotations.
The area of land to be taken or maintained out of production is difficult to compare
between RDPs as this is sometimes quoted as a percentage of the holding or cropped area
and sometimes in hectares. Where comparable values exist it is common for RDPs to require
between three and ten per cent of the holding to be taken or maintained out of production.
However these proportions do vary considerably, from a minimum of two per cent of the
farm19 in Ireland, to a minimum of 25 per cent in Greece. The figure quoted for Greece is
particularly high and refers specifically to irrigable land in sensitive areas for nitrates 20.
3.2.11 Training
Beyond the land management activities found in agri-environment schemes, some schemes
also require the farmer to attend training and education courses to help with
implementation and understanding of the environmental management required. Provision
for training is more usually supported under Axis 1, and this is not a commonly used
category of agri-environment action, found in only 12 RDPs21. Only one of these is in the EU12 (Slovenia), which has 14 packages containing this action.
Training within agri-environment schemes can be related to any or all of the environmental
objectives of the scheme. It always forms part of a wider package of actions and is found,
for example within packages addressing water pollution, management for wildlife and crop
rotations, or it may provide a more general introduction to environmental management. In
Ireland training is a compulsory requirement that must be carried out along with 11 other
compulsory packages of actions (Annex 2).
Beyond the number of hours that must be spent in training, details of what the training will
entail are not made explicit within the description of the agri-environment schemes in the
RDPs, although this can be inferred from the focus of the other actions included within the
package. The commitment to training ranges from an average of two hours a year in
Luxembourg (during the first three years of a five year agreement) to four hours a year in
Slovenia (20 hours over the five year agreement) (Annex 2). In some cases, for example
Ireland, the link between the requirement for training and the provision for its financing
under Axis 1 is highlighted, although this is not the norm.
19 In the case of tillage (arable) farmers or three per cent of the farm in the case of grassland farmers.
20
The requirement on farmers is to take out of production a minimum of 25 per cent of potentially irrigable
land and carry out no farming operations for the duration of the agreement.
21
Finland, France (Corsica), Germany (Niedersachsen and Bremen and Nordrhein-Westfalen), Ireland, Italy
(Bolzano), Luxembourg, Slovenia, Spain (Extremadura, Catalunya, and Navarra), and the UK (Northern
Ireland)
23
3.3 How management actions are packaged within agri-environment programmes
Having considered the different categories of entry-level management actions included
within agri-environment schemes across the 81 continental RDPs this section examines how
entry-level management actions are combined within different agri-environment schemes,
and how these combinations are used.
3.3.1 Grouping of actions
Although entry-level management actions have been identified and discussed individually
for the purposes of analysis in this study, in reality they are commonly presented within
agri-environment schemes in groups or packages of actions. The way in which actions are
grouped together differs considerably between Member States and regions in terms of the
number and purpose of different packages, the range and number of different types of
management actions and the terminology used22,23. More detail on how schemes are
structured and implemented can be found in Chapter 5.
Two broad types of package can be identified:
 Thematic packages designed to address specific issues such as the prevention of soil
erosion or the management of particular environmental features such as traditional
field boundaries. For example, in Åland (Finland), a thematic package of actions
aimed at reducing fertilisation rates requires the farmer to limit the level of nitrogen
fertiliser and manure applied to the land, keep records of different practices and
establish an input management plan.
 General packages designed to address a number of different issues such as
‘environmentally friendly management’ where the individual management actions
may be implemented in different locations across the farm in order to achieve these
aims. For example, in Austria, a general package of actions aimed at the
‘environmentally-friendly management of arable land’ requires the farmer to limit
fertiliser application, use crop rotations, implement strips or patches for wildlife on
at least two per cent of the area, maintain landscape features, and keep records.
The way in which actions are packaged together not only affects their potential to deliver
against certain objectives but also the relative level of investment (time and/or effort)
required by the farmer. For example a package that contains only three actions carried out
in the same location may require less effort than a package that contains six actions which
must be carried out in different locations across the holding.
In some cases entry-level management actions are grouped together in packages with
higher-level actions. For example in Andalucía, under the basic commitments for the
sustainable management of dehesas, tree planting (considered in this study to be higherlevel management) is included alongside actions relating to grazing regimes, restrictions on
PPP use, scrub control, the establishment of a management plan and keeping records.
Entry-level management actions are also sometimes conditional elements of higher-level
management such as in England (UK) where participation in the entry--level agri22 In
RDPs groupings may be called schemes, sub-schemes or packages, sometimes with a descriptive title that
signals the aims. We have chosen to use packaging as a consistent term.
23 There are also differences in payment structure that are examined for the case study RDPs
24
in Chapter 5.
environment scheme is almost invariably a condition of applying for the higher-level
scheme.
In a few cases, entry-level management actions are not packaged together in separate
schemes but instead are presented as a menu from which the farmer can choose (Box 3.1).
The choice of actions for an individual farm may be influenced by advice and scheme
guidance.
Box 3.1: Example of the menu based approach used in England, UK
A menu of individual actions is used in England’s agri-environment sub scheme Entry Level
Stewardship (ELS). Under ELS, a wide range of different management actions are available
for a farmer to choose, from the creation of infield patches for wildlife to the maintenance
of hedgerows or the provision of over-winter stubbles. Although such actions are not
packaged together they are presented thematically whereby similar actions are listed
together. This design, in combination with a significant amount of scheme literature, is
intended to help farmers choose actions that are most environmentally suitable for their
specific situation but it does not restrict their final choice, which simply has to meet a points
threshold. All management actions are allocated a certain level of points per hectare and
the farmer must choose a combination of actions to meet their total points threshold, which
is linked to the area of the holding).
3.3.2 Degree of choice available to farmers
In addition to the difference in structure and targeting of packages, the degree of choice
available to the farmer also differs in terms of which packages or groups of packages they
are permitted to select from a scheme or programme, as well as the choice of actions within
a package. At the scheme or programme level farmers may have a completely free choice of
packages, may have a free choice but with restrictions where certain combinations of
packages are required or not allowed, or there may be a requirement to implement a
certain type or number of packages, but beyond that the farmer can choose. These
variations are discussed in more detail in the case studies.
Box 3.2: Example of compulsory and optional packages used in Italy
In the Lazio region of Italy, certain package of actions can be carried out individually, whilst
others must be done in combination with other packages. Under the scheme to preserve
and enhance organic matter there are three packages of actions: (1) organic fertiliser; (2)
catch crops and green manure; and (3) crop rotation. Packages 1 and 3 can be carried out
individually whereas package 2 must be combined with either package 1 or 3. Under a
different sub-scheme within the agri-environment programme (Improving the environment
and conservation of the countryside) there are six different packages of actions that can be
implemented individually or together. However there is a maximum remuneration (varying
by crop type) that will be paid irrespective of the number of packages adopted. A similar
approach is also seen in other regions of Italy for example in Emilia Romagna, and Bolzano.
Once the farmer has chosen a package of management actions, in most cases all actions in a
package are obligatory, as a condition of payment, but there are some RDPs where farmers
are offered a choice of actions within the package. This may simply be matching the specific
25
type of crop, soil or feature on the farm to the appropriate actions, or it may be an
opportunity for the farmer to exercise personal preference (Box 3.2).
In some cases compulsory packages include optional ‘top-up-actions’ that may be entrylevel or may be at a higher-level. Examples of top-ups can be seen in Estonia’s
environmentally friendly practices scheme (Annex 2) where a number of core actions must
be implemented for a flat rate payment but other optional actions can be implemented for
an increased payment. A similar example is also seen in Finland (Chapter 4).
3.4 Management actions in the RDPs for the outermost regions of the EU
There are nine outermost regions of the EU (see Box A3.1, Annex 3) only seven of which
have RDPs. No previous typologies of agri-environment schemes have included them but it
is interesting to examine the similarities and differences between these seven RDPs and
those of continental Europe.
Understandably, fewer of the 63 types of management action are represented in this small
group of RDPs, a consequence of the very different farming systems that occur in these
areas compared with those of continental Europe. Unlike the continental RDPs, these
outermost RDPs span a more diverse range of bio-climatic regions including the Caribbean
(Guadeloupe and Martinique), African (Reunion), Micronesian (Azores, Madeira and
Canaries), and South American (Guiana).
Figure 3.3: Categories of entry-level management actions in the seven RDPs for the
outermost regions of the EU
Despite the relatively few types of actions present, 13 of the 15 broad categories of actions
are represented in some way (Figure 3.3). Two categories, input management and
26
landscape feature management, are common to all of the agri-environment schemes within
these RDPs. These are also two of the more common categories of actions in the continental
RDPs. The categories that are not represented within agri-environment schemes in the
outermost regions are management for wildlife, which given the very different nature of the
faunal and floral composition of these regions may not be appropriate or necessary, and
maintaining or taking land out of production.
The management actions tend to have rather different requirements from those in
continental agri-environment schemes. For example, grazing regimes have marginally higher
maximum livestock densities than mainland Europe, between two and three LU/ha in
Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Guiana, but in the Azores and the Canaries the maximum
livestock density is generally much lower (1.4 LU/ha) although it may be up to 2LU/ha in
areas receiving particularly high rainfall (80 cm per year). This highlights the dependency of
carrying capacities on local bio-geographical characteristics.
Interestingly, training features more frequently within these agri-environment schemes,
present in all three French outer regions (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Réunion and
Martinique), despite not being included in the agri-environment scheme for mainland
France.
Although the RDPs for these regions are based on a common European framework, it is
interesting to see the differences in crop types reflected in the agri-environment
requirements. For example, specified rotations in Reunion include pineapples, and soil cover
in Guadeloupe is part of a package of actions to help improve the environmentally friendly
farming associated with banana production.
27
4
INTRODUCTION TO CASE STUDIES OF ENTRY-LEVEL AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES IN
SEVEN MEMBER STATES
The typology and analysis in Chapters 2 and 3 illustrate the range of entry-level
management actions included within agri-environment schemes in the EU-27 RDPs and their
potential contribution to key environmental objectives of EU concern. The chapters that
follow examine in more detail selected entry-level components of agri-environment
schemes from ten RDPs across seven Member States (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland,
France, Italy, Poland and the UK). These were chosen to represent a diversity of farm
structures, environmental problems and opportunities, bio-physical and policy contexts, and
include both old (EU-15) and new (EU-12) Member States. For the latter agri-environment
implementation is relatively new and their farming sector is still in the process of phasing in
other CAP policies.
The information for the case studies has been derived from the most recent versions of the
RDPs (available in early 2011), environmental and agricultural information from non-RDP
sources, interviews with key experts, and relevant national literature.
4.1
The environmental focus of the case study entry-level schemes and their coherence
with regional environmental priorities
The environmental priorities addressed by agri-environment schemes will of course differ
from one RDP to another, but it should be possible to identify a clear link between EU and
territorial environmental priorities and the design and focus of entry-level schemes. The
extent to which these links were clear varied considerably in the seven case study countries.
One common theme was the use of agri-environment schemes to improve the protection
and management of soils and the reduction of diffuse pollution, with a particular focus on
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). In Bulgaria the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) highlights the
problem of environmental pollution related to intensive agricultural activities, which have
led to high levels of nitrates in ground and surface waters. The crop rotation scheme
contributes to water quality improvement by reducing the risk of soil erosion and nitrate
leaching from arable land, with priority given to applicants within the NVZs (68 per cent of
the agricultural land). The scheme to control soil erosion in Bulgaria operates within the
context of a risk of water or wind erosion on 24 per cent of agricultural land. In the Czech
Republic arable farming in fertile areas (usually lowlands) is rather intensive both in terms of
machinery and input use and there are few landscape features for wildlife. Soil erosion is a
significant problem, mostly by water but also by wind in some regions, with a significant
area of arable land on slopes at severe risk of water erosion. Most Czech farms are mixed,
and the conversion to grassland of areas of arable land particularly susceptible to erosion
has been supported by public funding since the mid 1990s. By 2006 there had been an
increase of 150,000 ha in the area of grassland over the whole territory, and this erosion
control scheme continues to be a priority within the current agri-environment
programme24. In Poland soil erosion is a significant risk in some areas and more than half
24
The current scheme in the Czech Republic is targeted at those parts of land parcels at greatest risk of
erosion and includes grassland creation in riparian zones, and it is considered within this study as an entrylevel management action.
28
the arable land has reduced levels of soil organic matter. The quality of surface and ground
water is rather poor, and reducing pollution from agricultural sources and improving rural
sanitation is a priority. In the UK resource protection issues have recently become more
prominent within the policy agenda, and several new options for soil and water
conservation have been introduced in England since 2005.
In Finland the agri-environment programme plays a central role in national environmental
and conservation policy and provides the major source of funding for the protection of
surface and marine waters from agricultural run-off. This is a key environmental priority
because the Baltic Sea is an enclosed sea basin with poor water exchange, and inland waters
in Finland are mostly oligotrophic (nutrient poor) and very susceptible to damage from
pollution. There is a demanding government target to reduce pollution loads from
agricultural run-off over a ten year period25 and the national agri-environment programme
is the main tool identified to achieve this, with the entry-level element of the basic agrienvironment scheme focused on water protection, targeting broad non-point sources of
agricultural run-off. The related higher-level options are used to address localised sources of
pollution and specific locations (such as land near water bodies).
Entry-level agri-environment schemes in Bulgaria have a strong biodiversity focus, and this
objective is addressed through both entry-level and higher-level schemes in the Czech
Republic, Poland and the UK. In Finland, biodiversity conservation objectives are covered
mainly by the higher-level schemes (with the exception of a recently introduced compulsory
‘environmental fallow’ requirement within the entry level scheme). In Bulgaria the three
entry-level elements focussed specifically on HNV farmland and traditional farming systems
reflect both the current extent of these land uses and their importance in delivering
government objectives for nature conservation and protection of existing environmental
assets. The BAP 2005-2010 identifies a range of issues and priorities linked to agriculture,
which include the problem of abandonment of traditional agricultural activities (livestock
breeding) in mountain and semi-mountain areas, leading to loss of habitats and biodiversity.
Poland is rich in biodiversity, with a large range of habitats and a mosaic agricultural
landscape structure, and the protection of habitats and traditional rural landscapes relies
upon extensive farming. About 45 different types of semi-natural grasslands are managed as
meadows and pastures, mostly in the lowlands in depressions and river valleys, and 10.5 per
cent of agricultural land retains semi-natural characteristics. Linked to this, the agrienvironment priority for protecting biodiversity in rural areas in Poland is focussed on
maintaining existing natural resources in good condition and avoiding the environmental
effects of intensification or abandonment of agricultural land, rather than being focussed on
extensification of agricultural production.
25 In 2006 the Finnish
Government made a decision-in-principle setting out Water Protection Policy Outlines to
2015. The most important objective is to reduce nutrient pollution. A target has been set to reduce
agricultural nutrient loads by at least a third of their average level over the years 2001 - 2005 by 2015.
Furthermore, the EU Water Framework Directive and the national Act for Arrangement of Water
Management require that the condition of surface water and groundwater shall not be allowed to decline
and the status of these waters should at least be good.
29
In England (UK) the entry-level component of the agri-environment scheme is seen as the
primary vehicle for addressing specific objectives for biodiversity conservation in the wider
countryside, while the higher-level scheme is focussed on more localised biodiversity
priorities. At entry-level there is a particular emphasis on farmland birds which have for
some years been the subject of a UK Government biodiversity indicator and annual
monitoring26. This indicator tracks the population levels of widely distributed birds that are
largely dependent on farmland habitats, and has shown substantial declines in ‘specialist’
farmland species. Another long-standing focus of agri-environment policy in the UK has
been the conservation of traditional field boundaries, mainly hedges and stone walls, for
their contribution to landscape and cultural objectives, with entry level management
focussing on the maintenance of such features in good condition. The agri-environment
options in Scotland appear to address mainly biodiversity and landscape objectives, with no
obvious targeting of historic features, resource protection, access, climate change, or flood
risk objectives as in the England scheme.
The agri-environment programme in France is relevant to the implementation of several of
the BAPs adopted in 2004. For example, those for agriculture and natural heritage aim inter
alia to protect and improve biodiversity in rural areas through a territorial approach to the
improvement of agricultural practices, the use of local and traditional crops and breeds and
the creation of a green/blue ecological infrastructure in agricultural areas. In the case of
Italy, the coherence between environmental priorities and entry-level type management in
the three regional RDPs studied here appears to be less clear than in other Member States,
perhaps because there is a strong emphasis on support for organic farming and integrated
production.
4.2 Structure of the agri-environment programmes in the case study Member States
In most cases the entry-level actions examined in this study lie within an overall agrienvironment framework that includes both other entry-level actions and higher–level
actions, but the architecture and complexity of the schemes vary considerably, as does the
way in which entry-level actions are focussed on single or multiple objectives and are
subsequently packaged, targeted and delivered.
The type of entry-level schemes or management actions in the seven Member States
selected for more detailed study are summarised in Table 4.1 and the structure and content
of the agri-environment programmes from which these examples are drawn is described in
the Member State summaries below. Information is provided on target uptake where this is
available at the level of detail required. However, in many RDPs the target uptake is
expressed for the whole agri-environment programme, not individual packages of actions,
or is quantified in terms of land contributing to specific objectives where the support is
delivered by a combination of agri-environment management actions with multiple
objectives.
26
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wildlife/kf/wdkf03.htm (accessed 17 June
2011)
30
Table 4.1: Agri-environment schemes and management actions selected for further study
case study
Bulgaria Czech Republic
entry-level agri-environment scheme structure
separate separate
schemes schemes
national or regional
RDPs selected for
study
payment rates €/ha
for entry-level
schemes selected for
study
Finland
France
standard package of
6 compulsory actions
separate schemes
separate schemes
separate schemes
national
national
national
national
national
27 to 155
per ha
75 to 374 per ha
managed
93 or 107 whole
farm, plus 170 or 300
for area managed as
‘set-aside’
32 to 76 per ha
managed, total
payment per farm
capped
3 regions out of 21:
Lazio, Lombardia
and Campania)
48 to 450 per ha
managed, some
payments reduced
for larger areas
*
*
types of agri-environment management actions in schemes selected for study
grassland
*
*
management
semi-natural forage
*
management
crop rotation
*
buffer strips
*
*
*
management plans
*
fertilisers and
*
PPP(crops)
landscape features
*
taking land out of
*
production
soil management
soil cover
*
*
27 Payment data
Italy
*
*
*
*
*
Poland
84 to 573 per ha
managed,
payments
degressive with
farm size
United Kingdom
self-selected package
(England); separate
schemes (Scotland)
2 regions out of 4:
England (En) and
Scotland (Sc)
38 whole farm (En); 2
to 592 for area
managed, total per
farm capped by farm
size (Sc) 27
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
for the UK throughout the report have been converted from GBP, using a notional exchange rate of £1=1.25 euros (as used in Annexes to 2007-13 RDP for
England)
31
4.2.1 Czech Republic
Entry-level actions reviewed: management of meadows and pastures: and two sub-schemes
targeted at soil protection, conversion of arable to grassland and cover crops.
The Czech agri-environment programme is structured around three themes. The
environmentally friendly farming theme is entirely entry-level but the other two, for
grassland management and arable management, include both entry-level and higher-level
elements, as shown in Table 4.2, with the entry-level components selected for further study
indicated by shading.
Table 4.2: Agri-environment schemes in the Czech Republic
Level
Scheme
A
Entry level
A1
A2
B
B1
Target
Environmentally friendly
methods
Organic farming
Integrated farming
Grassland maintenance
Meadows
farming
283,100 ha of 3,209,898 ha
26,900 ha of 305,102 ha
Pastures
Mesophilic and hygrophilic meadows
(12 options of management)
B3 Mountain and xerophilous meadows
(12 options of management)
B4 Permanently
waterlogged
and
peatland meadows (four options,
nationwide
but
geographically
targeted)
B5 Bird habitats on grassland – wader
nesting site (designated)
B6 Bird habitats on grassland – corncrake
nesting site (designated)
B8 Species rich pastures
B9 Dry steppe grasslands and heathlands
(four options)
Entry-level
C
Arable management for resource
protection and biodiversity
C1 Conversion of arable to grassland (4
options)
C2 Cover crops
Higher-level
C3 Wildlife strips
Source: own table based Czech Republic case study
Higher level
310,000 ha of 3,515,000 ha
B7
B2
680,000 ha of 900,000 ha
300,000 ha of 2,600,000 ha
Most Czech grassland is managed extensively (in the sense of inputs used) but using
advanced machinery appropriate to the large parcel and farm sizes in the Republic. The two
grassland entry-level schemes studied, for meadows (B1) and pastures (B7), support
extensive grassland management that aims to limit the risks of both intensification and
underuse, and are targeted at grassland where no priority habitats have been identified.
The seven higher-level grassland schemes are targeted at specific priority grassland habitat
types or groups of habitats (often at risk of abandonment), with management actions
32
defined as appropriate. For the higher- level schemes B4, B5, B6 and B9 farmers can see the
eligible habitat areas identified on their LPIS maps. There is no differentiation between
entry-level and higher-level targets for the grassland schemes, which collectively have a
target uptake of 680,000 ha (75 per cent of the eligible area for all the grassland schemes).
The entry-level scheme for the conversion of arable land to grassland (C1) comprises four
packages of management actions for different types of conversion: to grassland; to
grassland along water bodies; to grassland using a regional seed mixture; and to grassland
using regional seed mixture along water bodies. The scheme for cover crops (C2) is designed
to address both soil degradation and nutrient loss on land designated as NVZs (two million
ha, almost 48 per cent of agricultural land), mostly in arable farming areas. The target
uptake for all three arable schemes (both entry-level and higher-level) is 300,000 ha.
4.2.2 Bulgaria
Entry-level actions reviewed: HNV grasslands; crop rotations; soil erosion control.
Bulgaria has had very limited experience of implementing agri-environment schemes.
Although the pilot regional schemes were designed as long ago as 1998, the first pilot
SAPARD agri-environment schemes only opened to farmers in late 2006. The current
programme is a group of ‘standalone’ entry-level schemes without associated higher-level
schemes or management actions28. It consists of five entry-level schemes each comprising
one or two packages, which can in some cases be combined. These are set out in Table 4.3,
with the entry-level components selected for further study indicated by shading.
Table 4.3: Agri-environment schemes in Bulgaria
Level
Scheme
Entry-level
Horizontal and zonal
Target
Organic farming:
 organic farming (OF)
 organic apiculture
Traditional livestock breeding:
 local breeds (LB1)
 mountain pastoralism (LB2)
Restoration and management of HNV farmlands:
 on undergrazed HNV grasslands (HNV1)
 on overgrazed HNV grasslands (HNV2)
200,000 ha
(these two grassland schemes have since been merged)
 on arable lands in IBAs (HNV4)
Soil and water protection:
 crop rotation (SW1)
 soil erosion control (SW2)
Landscape features:
 maintenance of traditional orchards (LF3)
10,000 ha
90,000 ha
11,000 ha
Source: own table based on Bulgaria case study
28
In the context of Bulgarian agriculture organic farming and traditional livestock breeding can be considered
as entry-level because they are aimed at supporting existing farming systems under threat.
33
The undergrazed grassland scheme (HNV1) as well as the scheme for mountain pastoralism
(LB2) are intended to address the risk to biodiversity and habitats from abandonment of
traditional livestock farming. During the preparation of the RDP in 2007, the total area of
the parcels of permanent pasture identified as high nature value (HNV) farmland covered as
much as 1,138,981 ha29. The impact target area under this scheme is 200,000 ha, equivalent
to approximately 17 per cent of the area initially identified as HNV permanent pastures. The
schemes for and water and soil protection are targeted by prioritising applications from
NVZs and municipalities with moderate to severe erosion problems, respectively.
4.2.3 Finland
Entry-level actions reviewed: basic management scheme of six compulsory packages
The agri-environment programme in Finland is based around an entry-level basic
management scheme of six compulsory packages of management actions which all
beneficiaries implement, plus an additional option which applicants choose from a
supplementary menu (some of these build directly on the compulsory elements, for
example more restrictive fertiliser requirements). The entry-level scheme is a mix of
different types of management actions collectively focussed on reducing diffuse pollution; it
is targeted at 93 per cent of farmers and 98 per cent of arable land and accounts for 88 per
cent of total agri-environment expenditure in Finland (2009 figures30). The remainder of the
programme comprises the ‘special options’ scheme with packages of higher-level
management actions, some of them horizontal (for example organic farming), others zonal
or targeted (for example long-term grass crops on arable land with peaty soils). These are
set out in Table 4.4, with the entry-level components selected for further study indicated by
shading.
Table 4.4: Agri-environment schemes in Finland
Level
Scheme
Packages of management actions
Target
Basic scheme compulsory section
Environmental planning and monitoring of
farm practices
Establish ‘environmental fallow’ areas on 515% of the land
Fertilisation of arable crops
Fertilisation of horticultural crops
Headlands and buffer strips
Maintenance of biodiversity and landscape
98 % of arable
land
Entry-level
horizontal
Basic scheme - additional
options
29 Bulgarian RDP version 4, July
Reduced fertilisation
Plant cover
Crop diversification
Extensive grassland
Catch crops
Horticultural options
2010
30 Based on 2009 data (Aakkula et al, 2010)
34
93% of
farmers
Medium-level
and higher-level
zonal and/or
targeted
Special options
Organic farming
Local breeds and crops
Riparian zones
Wetlands
Groundwater
Water management, habitat management
Grass on peatland arable soils
Source: own table based Finland case study
4.2.4 France
Entry-level actions studied: extensive grazing systems; diversification of arable crop
rotations
The national programme of the 2007-13 RDP, the Plan de développement rural hexagonal
(PDRH) consists of the nine agri-environment schemes shown in Table 4.5, of which two are
national schemes, six are regional but not zoned (the scheme specifications are national but
it is delivered locally) and one scheme is completely regional, with a different menu of
actions for each region and farm and applied in specific zones. Three of these schemes are
entry-level. Of these, the two national schemes for extensive grazing systems and
diversification of arable crop rotations have been selected for further study and are
indicated by shading in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Agri-environment schemes in France
Entry-level
Level
Territorial coverage
National
Schemes
Scheme A - extensive grazing systems
Scheme B - diversification of arable crop rotations
Scheme C – low input mixed crops and livestock fodder system
Scheme D - conversion to organic farming
Higher-level
Regional but not zoned
Scheme E - maintenance of organic farming
Scheme F – protection of endangered breeds
Scheme G – Conservation of endangered plant resources
Scheme H – Enhancing the potential of honeybee pollination for
biodiversity conservation31
Scheme I - Territorial agri-environment schemes:
I.1 - Natura 2000 issue;
Regional and zoned
I.2 - Water Framework Directive issues;
I.3 - other environmental issues.
Source: own table based on France case study
31
This scheme is close to the reference level and therefore considered to be entry-level (apiculture is one of
the entry-level categories in the typology), and in France it is available only in specific areas within each
region
35
The aim of the extensive grazing scheme is to stabilise grassland management in areas
threatened by abandonment and to maintain environmentally friendly production methods,
encouraging reduced levels of nitrogen fertiliser use, longer grassland rotations and
protection of biodiversity features. The scheme to diversify crop rotations is aimed at
reducing the need to use plant protection products by creating a longer interval before a
crop returns to the same plot (and thus disrupting the cycle of crop-specific pests); an
additional objective is limiting run-off by planting a more varied range of crops.
4.2.5 Italy
Entry-level actions reviewed in four groups from three different RDPs: crop rotation, cover
crops, minimum tillage, reduction of fertiliser; increase organic component of arable soil;
maintain permanent meadows; maintain permanent pasture.
In Italy the RDPs are programmed and implemented by 21 regional governments within the
framework of the National Strategy for Rural Development. Three have been examined in
depth: Lombardia, Lazio and Campania in North, Central and Southern Italy respectively.
These regions represent the varied bio-geographic, agricultural and environmental context
of agri-environment schemes in the Italian regions; the agricultural characteristics of the
three regions are shown in Table 4.6. Agri-environment schemes account for around a
quarter of the total programmed RDP expenditure in Lombardia (27 per cent) and Lazio (25
per cent), while in Campania the proportion is just 12 per cent.
Table 4.6: Agricultural characteristics of the three Italian regions
Region
Farming types
Intensity of management
Arable
land %
UAA
Permanent
pasture
and
meadows
%UAA
Permanent
crops
%
UAA
Grazing
livestock
(% of all
LSU)
2007
Lombardia
Lazio
70
48
27
32
4
20
Campania
Italy (all)
53
55
20
27
27
18
Spending
on crop
inputs
(€/ha
UAA)
2007
Farm
structure
Irrigated
area %
UAA
2007
43
89
Livestock
density
index
(LSU/100
ha
of
UAA)
2007
279
53
62
16
17
7
83
56
81
78
21
21
4
8
151
Average
farm size
(ha/
holding)
Source: own table based Italy case study
The agri-environment programmes in Italy are not clearly structured into entry-level and
higher-level schemes, and more than half the agri-environment expenditure is on schemes
supporting organic farming and integrated farming, which have been excluded from the
analysis for this study (as explained in Chapter 1). Excluding these, four different types of
entry-level or equivalent schemes can be identified across Italy, and have been selected for
further study in the three regions as shown by shading in in Table 4.7. Type 1 is targeted at
protecting soil and water resources in arable and permanent cropping systems and Type 2
at using organic fertilisers to increase the levels organic matter in arable soils (and help to
reduce a surplus of manure and slurry from livestock farms). Types 3 and 4 are applicable
only to grazing livestock systems, mainly in mountain areas, and are zonally targeted at
36
extensive grassland management for biodiversity and water resource protection - for
example where there is a risk of land abandonment, in Natura 2000, NVZs and other
designated or priority areas.
Table 4.7: Agri-environment schemes in Italy
Types of entry-level scheme
Application in 21 RDPs in
Italy
Uptake in 2009 in RDPs selected for study
(not targets)
Lombardia
Lazio
Campania
(North)
(Centre)
(South)
30,952 ha
2,324 ha
3,000 ha
1,087
(contracts
80 contracts
contracts
n.a.)
Type 1
13 RDPs
Crop rotation, cover crops,
minimum tillage, reduction of
fertiliser
Type 2
8 RDPs
200 ha
673 ha
Increase organic component of
(contracts
77 contracts
arable soil
n.a.)
Type 3
All RDPs in Northern Italy,
22,702 ha
Maintain permanent meadows some in Central and Southern
1.794
(mainly mown)
Italy
contracts
Type 4
27,000 ha
Maintain permanent pasture
720
(grazed)
contracts
Note: this table shows selected entry-level schemes/RDPs, not the whole programme, and uptake data for
2009, not targets (n.a. not available). Source: Mid-Term Evaluation Reports, 2010
4.2.6 Poland
Entry-level actions reviewed: sustainable agriculture; extensive management of meadows
and pastures; undersown catch crop; winter catch crop; summer catch crop; 2m and 5m
buffer strips (riparian and field margin)
The current RDP is only the second to have been implemented in Poland, and the agrienvironment programme consists of nine agri-environment schemes, all of them available
across the whole territory. Four of the schemes are entry-level, and five can be considered
as higher-level, including two targeted at habitats and species (one specifically for Natura
2000). Many of the schemes have several variants, as shown in Table 4.8 where those
selected for further study are indicated by shading.
Table 4.8: Agri-environment schemes in Poland
LEVEL
SCHEME
Sustainable agriculture
VARIANTS
Sustainable agriculture
Extensive permanent grassland
Extensive management
of meadows and
pastures
Undersown catch crop
Winter catch crop
Summer catch crop
2 m riparian
5 m riparian
2 m field margin
5 m field margin
Soil and water protection
Buffer strips
Entry-level
37
TARGET
6,000 farms
150,000 ha
190,000 ha
100,000 farms
1 million ha
200 farms
650 linear metres
Higher-level
Protection of species and habitats
outside Natura 2000 areas
Protection of species and habitats
within Natura 2000 areas
Conservation of local crop varieties
Conservation of local breeds
Organic farming
Target for whole AE programme
Ten variants
Ten variants
Four variants
Four variants
Twelve variants
353,000 farms
1.5 million ha
Source: own table based on Poland case study
The entry-level schemes mainly address problems of water pollution and soil degradation,
as well as biodiversity. The schemes for sustainable agriculture and extensive meadows and
pasture aim to support extensive management of both arable and grassland, for example by
nutrient planning, crop rotations, fertiliser and stocking limits. The scheme for soil and
water protection focusses on maintaining soil cover on arable land throughout the year; the
buffer strips are unfertilised permanent grassland managed without fertilisers.
4.2.7 United Kingdom
Entry-level actions reviewed: hedgerow management; buffer strips; permanent grassland;
stubbles/post harvest management; soil erosion; tree management; wildlife strips; grazing
management.
The current programme in England is one of the most complex in the EU, with 67 options in
the main entry-level scheme, and almost as many again in the higher-level scheme. The
standard Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) scheme described in Table 4.9 is available to all
farmers (there is also an organic version with slightly higher payment rates). In the most
disadvantaged area of the Less Favoured Area (LFA), farmers can choose instead to apply for
an uplands version of ELS which was launched in 2010. The Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)
scheme is targeted at specific objectives which vary according to locality, and only those
applications considered to offer good value for money are accepted. Almost all HLS
contracts are on land that is already under an ELS agreement (indeed this is a prerequisite in
the majority of cases), and the relevant management actions in the two schemes are
designed to complement each other. The overall uptake target for all agri-environment
schemes in England is 70 per cent of the UAA. The elements of the ELS selected for further
study are indicated by shading in Table 4.9.
38
Table 4.9: Agri-environment schemes in England
Level
Scheme
Packages of management actions
Target
Farm environment record
Boundary features (13 options)
Trees and woodland (9 options)
Historic and landscape features (5 options)
Entry-level
Buffer strips (10 options)
Arable land (12 options)
Range of crop types (2 options)
Entry Level
Scheme
(ELS)
Protect soil and water (4 options)
Grassland outside Severely Disadvantaged Areas (13
options)
Mixed stocking on grassland
Higher-level
Grassland and moorland inside SDAs (6 options)
Boundary features (3 options)
Trees, woodland and scrub (13 options)
Orchards (4 options)
Historic and landscape features (6 options)
Higher Level
Scheme
(HLS)
Arable land (7 options)
Protect soil and water (5 options)
Grassland (16 options)
Moorland and upland rough grazing (8 options)
Access (9 options)
Lowland heathland (5 options)
Inter-tidal and coastal (11 options)
Wetlands (12 options)
Additional supplements (8 options)
Target for whole AE programme
2.5 million ha (70% of
UAA)
50,000 holdings
Source: own table based UK case study
In Scotland the structure of the RDP is quite different, in that measures from all three EAFRD
axes are combined within a single Rural Development Contracts (RDC) scheme, integrating
Axis 2 agri-environment and forestry payments with the delivery of Axis 1 and Axis 3
measures. Table 4.10 shows only the agri-environment options, with those selected for
further study indicated by shading. The RDC scheme offers a menu of entry-level packages
from the three axes, entitled Land Managers’ Options (LMOs), available to all farmers and a
higher-level strand of targeted Rural Priorities (RPs) to which entry is competitive, as in
England. Although this is an integrated scheme, there is no requirement for an RDC contract
to include any of the agri-environment options.
39
Table 4.10: Agri-environment options within the integrated RDP scheme in Scotland32
Higher level
Entry-level
LEVEL
SCHEME
Land Mangers’ Options
(LMO)
Rural Priorities (RP)
PACKAGES OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Rush (Juncus) pasture for wildlife
Summer cattle grazing
Moorland grazing
Linear features
Grass margins and beetle banks in arable fields
Biodiversity cropping
Wild bird seed mix/unharvested crop
Conservation headlands
Winter stubbles
Natural regeneration after cereals
Farm woodlands (2 options)
Animal welfare
Organic farming
Organic farming
TARGET
Grassland (9 options)
Arable (5 options)
Heathland and peat soils (9 options)
Wetland (6 options)
Hedges (2 options)
Farm woodland and scrub (2 options)
Habitat and species management (7options)
Other (3 options)
2 million ha
4,545 holdings
Target for whole AE programme
Source: own table based on UK case study
The Scottish entry-level scheme also focuses less on strategic environmental policy targets
than ELS does in England, and appears to consist more of a collection of packages designed
to address specific issues, although it is worth noting that BAP species are mentioned under
a number of options in the guidance notes for farmers. Bearing in mind that much of
Scotland’s farmland is upland grazing, there is perhaps a surprisingly high proportion of
options that mainly address lowland farming systems (five out of 11, three of which are
specifically for arable), with only four appropriate for upland livestock farms.
32 Both
the LMO and RP elements of Scotland’s Rural Development Contracts scheme combine measures from
all three axes of EAFRD within a single scheme. The list shown here includes only the Axis 2 options targeted
at agricultural management available in 2011 It excludes Axis 1 and Axis 3 options, and forestry options
other
than
those
for
small
farm
woodlands
and
wood
pastures.
Source:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/Land-Managers-Options/Availableoptions
and
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Options accessed on 13 July 2011]
40
4.3
Relationship of entry-level management actions with other agricultural and
environmental payments
In a number of these Member States, some of the entry-level schemes operate alongside
other Axis 2 measures which may influence the management of the same area of farmland.
These include LFA support, and to a much lesser extent Natura 2000 and Water Framework
Directive compensation payments, and possibly the non-productive investment measure
although this is unlikely to be used in conjunction with entry-level schemes.
The effects of LFA payments on agri-environment uptake are likely to be mainly in stabilising
incomes on marginal farms where the land may be at risk of abandonment. For example in
the Czech Republic, LFA payments apply only to grassland and this has motivated some
farmers to convert arable land to grassland with support from the entry-level agrienvironment scheme targeted at erosion prone arable soils. In England LFA support is being
phased out altogether and replaced in the most disadvantaged LFA areas by the recently
introduced upland entry-level agri-environment scheme (which is not covered in this study).
In contrast Scotland, with a much higher proportion of LFA land, allocates a major share of
the RDP budget to LFA support and has relatively few entry-level management packages
designed for upland farming systems.
The Natura 2000 measure is not widely used in the countries examined, but a few agrienvironment programmes have packages of entry-level management actions targeted
specifically at Natura 2000 species or habitats, for example in Poland, Bulgaria (HNV
farmland), the Czech Republic (grassland habitats) and the UK (farmland birds in the entrylevel scheme, and several Natura 2000 habitats and species in the higher-level scheme).
The only other targeted CAP support which might directly complement entry-level schemes
is that provided through Pillar 1 Article 68 payments33, where these have been used. In the
Czech Republic, Article 68 has been used to target additional support at dairy cows, with
little effect on grassland management (because most of the dairy fodder is produced on
arable land) but in Scotland, where an Article 68 scheme has been introduced to support
suckler calves there is a degree of synergy with the entry-level agri-environment package for
mixed stocking (sheep and cattle). Similarly in Finland the payment under Article 68 for bulls
and heifers is seen as supporting environmental objectives by helping to maintain livestock
production in Southern Finland and to limit the replacement of rotational grassland by
specialised arable cropping, with its associated problems of soil structure, erosion, and
phosphorus run-off (Lehtonen, 2004). In Italy an Article 68 scheme for crop rotation
implemented in 2009-10 has characteristics of an agri-environment requirement, but with
annual payments, not multi-year contracts.
33 Article 68 of Council Regulation 73/2009
41
5
REVIEW OF REFERENCE LEVEL, PAYMENT RATES AND FACTORS AFFECTING UPTAKE OF
SELECTED ENTRY-LEVEL SCHEMES
5.1 Introduction
This chapter considers the dynamic relationship between the reference level and entry-level
agri-environment requirements and payment rates, and considers the factors affecting
farmers’ uptake of agri-environment schemes, using the selected examples of entry-level
components of agri-environment schemes from the seven Member States described in
Chapter 4.
The characteristics of the reference level are outlined first, followed by a discussion of
changes in the reference level over time and the influence of these on the content of
associated agri-environment schemes. The way in which payment rates are calculated and
the different payment structures used in agri-environment schemes are analysed, before
considering how these and other factors affect farmers’ uptake of entry-level agrienvironment schemes.
5.2 The reference level for agri-environment schemes
The concept of the ‘reference level’ as applied to agri-environment and other farm
payments under both Pillars of the CAP is a cost allocation mechanism developed by the
OECD in the 1990s. It serves to distinguish between those costs associated with the
achievement of environmental outcomes that must be borne by the operator, and those for
which private actors should be remunerated (OECD, 1998; Scheele, 1999). The reference
level, therefore, defines the dividing line between the level of environmental provision that
farmers are expected to deliver at their own expense, and an enhanced level of
environmental management for which farmers may be paid to deliver, for example through
agri-environment schemes (Kristensen and Primdahl 2006).
The environmental reference level for all area-based payments on farmland under the CAP
consists of cross-compliance and other standards that include:
 relevant Statutory Management Requirements (SMR), for example elements of the
Habitats or Birds Directives relating to Natura 2000 habitats and species, which apply
in all Member States except Bulgaria and Romania, where they will be phased in
from 2012;
 standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) (some of which
are optional for Member States to apply) defined by Member States within the
common EU framework34 shown in Table 5.1;
 other national or regional regulations that apply at farm level.
In addition, recipients of agri-environment payments must also comply with:
 requirements on the use of fertilisers and plant protection products which Member
States must define in the RDP35. Some examples of these types of requirements
34
Regulation EC 73/2009, Annex III
35 As required by Article 39(3) of Regulation 1698/2005
42
placed on farmers are shown in Annex 5.
Table 5.1: Framework of issues and standards for GAEC cross-compliance
Issue
Soil erosion:
Protect soil through appropriate
measures
Soil organic matter:
Compulsory standards
- Minimum soil cover
- Minimum land management
reflecting site-specific conditions
- Arable stubble management
Maintain soil organic matter levels
through appropriate practices
Soil structure:
Maintain soil structure through
appropriate measures
Minimum level of maintenance:
Optional standards
- Retain terraces
- Standards for crop rotations
- Appropriate machinery use
- Minimum livestock stocking rates
or/and appropriate regimes
Ensure a minimum level of
maintenance and avoid the
deterioration of habitats
- Retention of landscape features,
including, where appropriate,
hedges, ponds, ditches trees in
line, in group or isolated and field
margins
- Prohibition of the grubbing up of
olive trees
Protection and management of
water:
- Avoiding the encroachment of
unwanted vegetation on
agricultural land
- Protection of permanent
pastures
- Establishment of buffer strips
along water courses
- Establishment and/or retention of
habitats
- Maintenance of olive groves and
vines in good vegetative condition
Protect water against pollution
and run-off, and manage the use
of water
- Where use of water for irrigation
is subject to authorisation,
compliance with authorisation
procedures
Note: standards shown in italics were added in 2009 (source: Annex III of Council Regulation EC 73/2009)
Member States have defined GAEC and other standards in ways that reflect their different
national and regional circumstances and priorities, which means that the reference level
management actions underpinning agri-environment schemes differ not just across the EU,
but between regions, although the need to reflect the EU legal framework of crosscompliance and GAEC standards does limit these differences to a certain extent. Even within
a region the impact of the reference level on farm management may differ between farm
types (arable, livestock or permanent crops) or between similar farms in different locations
(NVZs or Natura 2000 areas for example).
5.2.1 Changes in the reference level over time
The reference level is not static and changes are initiated by the national or regional
authorities, in response to changes in EU legislation or their own domestic priorities. The
timing of these changes are not always synchronised with RDP programming periods. Some
43
of the Member States studied appear to have revised GAEC and national standards more
frequently than others, and therefore to have updated the associated agri-environment
schemes more frequently too, although this is not the only reason for revising agrienvironment schemes, as discussed in Chapter 6.
In Member States with a long history of agri-environment schemes, such as the UK and
France, there have been significant milestones of CAP reform over the past 20 years which
have provided the opportunity or obligation to change the agri-environment reference level.
For the EU-15 Member States, cross-compliance was introduced as a voluntary option in the
1992 McSharry reform36, followed by the requirement for standards of Good Farming
Practice to underpin agri-environment schemes in 199937, the cross-compliance GAEC/SMR
framework of standards in 2003/200538 and revisions to GAEC and SMR in the 2009 Health
Check of the CAP39. The latter distinguished between compulsory and optional standards
and introduced new compulsory standards for water abstraction and unfertilised buffer
strips along watercourses (to be implemented by 2012). Other changes, implemented in
2010, were a more detailed specification of landscape features, and an optional standard for
the establishment and/or retention of habitats (offering an opportunity to recapture some
of the environmental benefits of set-aside).
The timeline for the EU-10 Member States has of course been shorter, although they have
had the experience of defining standards of Good Farming Practice for the 2004-06 RDPs.
For the EU-2 it is shorter still, and they are still in the process of developing and adjusting
cross-compliance standards, as experience in Bulgaria shows. GAEC cross-compliance now
applies to all EU-12 and, although SMR requirements will be fully phased in only in 2016,
where pre-existing national legislation is comparable to environmental SMRs (for example in
habitats and species protection in Bulgaria) this is regarded as part of the reference level.
The case studies illustrate the extent to which year on year change takes place in GAEC
standards in some Member States between these milestone events. Some changes are
simply the result of a time lag caused by phasing in (for example of new standards in 2010
and 2012), and some are the result of a national or regional decision to adjust or refine
existing standards. Experience in France illustrates how frequently GAEC standards can be
changed within the timescale of one RDP programme. Six GAEC standards were introduced
in 2005 and there were modifications in 2006, 2007 and 2009, with all standards modified at
least once and some twice. In 2010 the six standards were replaced by a new set of seven
GAEC standards that combined some elements of the earlier set with new requirements.
The detail of these changes, which had the effect of progressively strengthening and refining
the standards, is shown in Annex 4. In Poland significant changes and additions were made
36
Only a limited number of Member States implemented voluntary cross compliance – Denmark, France,
Greece, the Netherlands and the UK.
37 Regulation EC 1257/1999 Article 23
38 Regulation EC 1782/2003
and Regulation EC 1698/2005
39 Regulation EC 73/2009
44
in moving from the Good Farming Practice standards of the 2004-06 RDP to the GAEC
standards for 2007, but few if any changes have been made during the current programme.
In Finland the reference level has been subject to even less frequent change, partly because
it was already quite well developed in national environmental legislation before GAEC crosscompliance was introduced. The first agri-environment programme in 1995-2000 was based
on a reference level which included, for example, restrictions on fertiliser applications and
requirements for riparian buffer strips, and by 2000 the whole country had been designated
as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone and all farmers had to comply with the requirements. The
process of implementing EU cross-compliance standards was therefore relatively simple,
and adjustments were made to agri-environment schemes to ensure these remained above
the new reference level.
Reference level requirements for permanent pasture offer another example of changes over
time. There are two requirements stipulated at the EU level. Firstly Member States must
define a compulsory GAEC standard for the protection of permanent pastures. Secondly, a
quantitative requirement obliges Member States to prevent any significant decrease in the
total permanent pasture area recorded in 2003-200540, but until the decrease reaches 10
per cent nationally there is no requirement to apply corrective measures at farm level for
the re-conversion of arable land into permanent pasture. In the UK existing Environmental
Impact Assessment legislation protecting semi-natural habitats from agricultural
intensification was incorporated as a GAEC standard, and there is no farm level requirement
to maintain the proportion of other permanent pastures. In France the reference level for
grassland agri-environment schemes has developed over a period of seventeen years from
no defined requirements in 1993 to the most recent version of GAEC standards in 2010
which requires the maintenance of the proportion of permanent pasture and temporary
grassland at farm level, and specifies minimum stocking rates or fodder yield.
Bulgaria provides an example, during the current RDP, of refining part of the GAEC standard
for the protection of permanent pasture by defining a separate standard specifically for
environmentally valuable pastures. Bulgaria has large areas of HNV grassland where
abandonment is a major environmental problem, and the 2007 GAEC standard (for
clearance of unwanted bushes), as originally defined and implemented by the Bulgarian
authorities, led to the destruction of valuable semi-natural habitats (see Box 5.4 for details).
In 2010 the GAEC standard was split into two with a new, separate standard introduced
specifically for HNV farmland, Natura 2000 and other protected areas. This allows farmers
entering an agri-environment contract to retain scattered single trees or coppices, shrubs
and/or hedgerows, covering up to 25 per cent of the overall grassy area, depending on the
previous condition of the meadow or pasture41, but leaves them excluded from SAPS and
other area based support payments, where the original GAEC standard for clearance of
vegetation still applies.
Within a region or Member State reference level requirements can have a different impact
on farms of similar type in different places, not just as a result of inter-regional variations in
GAEC standards. For example, in NVZs the restrictions on agricultural land management and
40 Article 6(2) of Council Regulation 73/2009.
41 Order of the Minister of Agriculture and Food RD- 09-616/ 21.07.2010.
45
the requirements for record keeping arising from the Nitrates Directive cause quite
significant differences in the extent and costs of cross-compliance between different types
of farm, as the example from the UK shows (Box 5.1).
Box 5.1: Differing costs of compliance with SMR4 (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) in England
In England the area of land designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) increased from
around 55 per cent of the territory to 70 per cent on 1 January 2009. The government
regulatory impact assessment of the change indicated that this was expected to lead to a
substantial increase in costs for the agricultural industry, amounting to between €819 and
€1261 million42 per annum, or between 1 and 30 per cent of farm business profit 43, borne
mainly by livestock farms. In a survey carried out by ADAS et al (2009), 47 per cent of
respondents said they had made changes to comply with SMR4 requirements for NVZs, and
consultation evidence indicated that inclusion of NVZ regulations in SMR cross-compliance
had increased farmers’ awareness and understanding of their obligations, but many
struggled with the record keeping requirements. Farmers viewed these as an unnecessary
burden and were therefore reluctant to comply. Breaches were found at 6.2 per cent of
inspections in 2006, and 3.9 per cent in 2007. Of these failures, 32 per cent were on cereals
or general cropping farms, but nearly half the failures related to incomplete records rather
than evidence of poor practice in the field.
Source: UK case study
5.2.2 Management actions in the reference level and in agri-environment schemes
Descriptions of management actions at farm level are used as the means of defining both
the verifiable standards of the reference level and the requirements of entry-level agrienvironment schemes. Of the eight most common categories in the typology described in
Chapter 2, seven include types of management actions that are also used as reference level
standards, particularly in GAEC and in requirements for the use of fertilisers and plant
protection products. These categories are: management of grass and semi-natural forage,
input management, management plans and record keeping, management of soil cover, soil
management, buffer strips and landscape feature management. Of course not all the types
of management action in each of these categories will be used in the reference level of a
particular RDP, nor will there always be associated agri-environment schemes, but where
there are it is necessary to make a clear distinction, in payment calculations and on the
ground, between what a farmer is required to do to meet reference standards and what is
paid for under the agri-environment scheme.
5.2.3 Effect of changes in the reference level on the design of agri-environment schemes
When changes to the reference level have the effect of ‘moving’ specific management
actions from agri-environment schemes (paid for) into obligatory reference level standards
(unpaid) it will be necessary to update both the management requirements and the
payment rates in the agri-environment schemes. Changes in the reference level have in
42 £655.1 and £1009 million, using conversion factor of £1 = €1.25
43
RIA attached to explanatory memorandum to the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2008: No. 2349
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2349/pdfs/uksiem_20082349_en.pdf
46
some cases been accompanied by only minor changes to entry-level agri-environment
schemes and in others by the complete replacement of an existing scheme with a new one,
possibly with slightly different objectives.
In the Czech Republic, when a more demanding GAEC standard for crop rotation was
introduced in 2010, the range of possible crops was reduced in the cover crops agrienvironment scheme and this had the effect of substantially reducing both payment rates
and uptake. On a much longer time scale, the first agri-environment crop rotation scheme in
France was introduced in 2000 at a time when Pillar 1 oilseed and protein crop payments
were aligned with those for cereals, and there had been a significant reduction in the
diversity of rotations, simplified around the two most profitable crops. In this case the
rotational scheme probably played a role until the reference level became more demanding
with the arrival of GAEC cross compliance standards.
In France there has been a long series of changes to the reference level and entry-level agrienvironment management requirements relating to extensive grassland management. The
timescale of the different schemes, some of which have overlapped is illustrated in Figure
5.1, and the changes to reference level, agri-environment management requirements,
payment rates and uptake is summarised in Table 5.2. In other cases schemes have
eventually been removed. The original crop rotation ‘sunflower’ scheme in France was first
modified (by adding a requirement for mechanical weed control) during the 2001 RDP
revision and integrated into the agri-environment programme, but later suspended because
most of its requirements were put into the new GAEC cross compliance standard for crop
rotation. An agri-environment ‘rotational’ scheme was again included in the 2007-13 RDP,
but in 2008 and 2009, this measure was not considered a priority and the agri-environment
budget was allocated to other schemes such as the grassland scheme PHAE2.
Figure 5.1: Implementation of the ‘grassland premium’ schemes in France from 1992
In some regions of Italy there is a considerable weight of expenditure on contracts from
previous programming periods because several regions set up new contracts during 2005644. In many cases these farmers have been able to alter their contracts to implement new
44
In Lombardia this ‘carried forward’ expenditure represents around 90% of the total agri-environment
expenditure in 2007-2009 (32% for the whole 2007-2013 programming period), in Lazio it is around 65% in
the first two years and 22% for the whole 2007-2013 programming period, while In Campania expenditure in
2009 on contracts from the previous programming period was ten times that on contracts initiated since
2007.
47
measures offered in the current RDP, although the level of payments is generally lower and
the technical commitments are substantially higher as a result of changes in SMR and GAEC
standards.
Changes to the reference level may not affect all entry-level elements of an agrienvironment scheme. During the first two years of the 2007-13 programme in Bulgaria
there were three changes of the GAEC standards and four notifications of the RDP, but
these changes did not alter the boundary between reference level and agri-environment
management actions and therefore did not necessitate changes to the payment rates. The
rates were in fact changed, but the main motivation for recalculating the payment levels
was the changed economic situation in the country. The effect of changes in the reference
level on uptake may not necessarily be in those entry-level schemes that ‘lose’ management
actions to the reference level. It could be argued that in the Czech Republic the more
demanding reference level standards for erosion-prone soils have provided an additional
incentive for farmers to convert arable land at high risk of erosion to grassland with agrienvironment support (although in practice uptake of that scheme seems to be constrained
by other factors).
In England some the biggest changes in reference level and associated entry-level options
have been in the context of soil and water management and protection, largely driven by
the change from GFP to GAEC in 2005, as described in Box 5.2, which introduced a new
GAEC standard that is more stringent than the original agri-environment measure. In the
Czech Republic the main change in the reference level was in 2010 to improve the
effectiveness of protection against soil erosion. The revised standards are quite demanding
and require changes which some farmers find difficult to comply with, for example not
growing row crops on certain parts of fields, and implementing specific farming practices on
vulnerable soils. Changes to grassland GAECs concerned details of reseeding and autumn
mowing, and seem to have caused fewer problems (Becvar, 2010).
48
Table 5.2: Changes in the reference level and agri-environment requirements for grassland in France 1993-2010
Years
19931997
RDP
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
-
Schemes
Reference level
Management
required by the
reference level
1998
Art 39(3)
conditions of
AE contract
GAEC 5:
minimum level
of maintenance
of land
GAEC 6:
Preservation of
permanent
pasture
PMSEE1
PMSEE2 +CTE
PHAE1
Good agricultural practice
-
-
2005
2006
2007
2008
PDRN
PMSEE2
-
2004
49
2010
PDRH
PHAE1 +CAD
PHAE1
PHAE2
Implementation of cross-compliance:
9 SMRs
16
19 SMRs
SMRs
6 GAEC
7 GAEC
Art.39(3) requirements for beneficiaries of agrienvironment measures
Requirements for fertilisation practices and use of crop
protection products (see Annex 5)
 Good farm management;
 Nitrogen fertilisers: not more than 170
kg/ha of organic nitrogen in vulnerable
area;
 Stocking rates to maintain vegetation
without damaging the conservation of
natural resources;
 Possible restrictions on use of mountain
pastures, for soil protection.
-
2009
 Cropped land (cereals, oilseed
crops and nut orchards) must all
be sown and maintained in
accordance with local practice
until the crop flowers;
 Pasture management criteria to be
defined at the local level, and must
include minimum stocking rates
and
grazing/mowing
requirements;
 Set-aside land (compulsory or
voluntary):
requirements
for
minimum maintenance of land,
type of cover (spontaneous or
sown), specific requirements for
meadows, fertilisation, succession
of crops and set aside, and specific
rules for environmental set aside.
Maintenance of a proportion of
permanent pasture in UAA at the
national level concerns all farmers
benefiting from direct aids and
having permanent pasture.
Two categories of land defined:
 Cropped land (cereals, oilseed crops
and nut orchards) must all be sown
and maintained in accordance with
local practice until the crop flowers;
 Land taken out of production (setaside): no bare soil, establish cover
(spontaneous or sown) without
fertilisation; apply no more than 50
kilos of total nitrogen per hectare,
observe rules for crushing and
mowing.
Three requirements are defined:
 overall maintenance of grasslands at
the farm level: 50% of reference area
(2010) for temporary grass, 100% for
permanent grass;
 minimum density of livestock of 0.4
Management
required by the
agrienvironment
scheme
Implementatio
n
 130 units N/ha/year (of which no more
than 70 as mineral)
 120 units N/ha/year (maximum 60
units as mineral)
 maximum 60 units P/ha/ year as
mineral
 maximum 60 units K /ha/year as
mineral)
Chemical weeding only with licence
LU/ha or minimum yield;
 maintenance of permanent pasture
ratio, with 2005 as reference year.
 125 units N/ha/year (maximum 60 as mineral)
 90 units P/ha/year (maximum 60 as mineral)
 160 units K/ha/year (maximum 60 as mineral)
Fertilizing
practices
Not
defined
Chemical
weeding
Not
defined
Pasture
specialisation
level
Density of
livestock
Maintenance of
permanent
grassland
Maintenance of
temporary
grassland
Permanent
elements of
landscape
Payment rates
Not
defined
-
Not
defined
Not
defined
< 1 LU/ha
Not
defined
Preservation of meadow areas
Ploughing or moving allowed once
during the 5 year contract
Ploughing or moving allowed once during the 5 year
contract, but only of 20 % of the area under contract
Not
defined
Maintenance of permanent landscape
elements (hedges, ponds, etc.)
Maintenance of permanent landscape
elements (hedges, ponds, etc.)
€30 /ha
€45 /ha, with a ceiling of €4 500 /year
Beneficiaries
100 000
76 400
€68 /ha average, with a ceiling of
€7 500 /year
57 000 for PHAE1 and 13 000 for
CTE/CAD
Maintenance permanent landscape elements of
biodiversity interest on minimum 20% of the pasture
area under contract
€76 /ha/year, with a ceiling of €7 600/year
Grasslands
under contract
Amount
5 M ha
5 M ha
annual average
amount
€893 M
€179 M
CTE/CAD and PHAE: between 0 and
75%
Prohibition of chemical weeding, excepted for control of
thistle, Rumex, weeds and invasive species, and
maintenance of fencing
Between 50% and 75%
PHAE: < 1.4 LU /ha and CTE/CAD: < 1.8
LU /ha
Retain during the 5 year contract
3.2 M ha for PHAE1 and 1.5 M ha for
CTE/CAD
823 M € for PHAE1 and €136 M for
CTE/CAD
€137 M
Source: France case study
50
< 1.4 LU /ha
52 800
3.5 M ha
€494 M
€124 M
Box 5.2: Relationship of reference level and agri-environment options for soil erosion (UK)
In England soil management is one of the issues that have come to the fore in recent years.
It was not a priority in earlier schemes, which were more concerned with wildlife, landscape
and historic features. Resource protection was included as an objective in Environmental
Stewardship when it was first introduced in the 2000-2006 programming period, with
separate options for a Soil Management Plan (SMP), the management of high erosion risk
cultivated land, and the management of maize crops to reduce erosion.
The GAEC standard for soils in England is the Soil Protection Review (SPR) which requires the
farmer to 1) identify any soil issues, 2) implement measures to manage this land
appropriately, and 3) review this action on at least an annual basis. The requirement to ‘selfpolice’ through reviewing the plan is potentially significant and it differs from SMPs
originally offered as an entry-level agri-environment payment simply for preparing a plan.
The SPR reference level is thus a more powerful tool than the agri-environment SMP, which
was withdrawn from the start of the Rural Development Plan for England (RDPE) 2007-13,
following a review of the agri-environment schemes and concerns expressed by the
European Commission that the distinction between the requirements of the SMP and those
of the cross compliance SPR, which forms the legislative baseline, was insufficient to justify a
paid option45. The agri-environment option for the management of high erosion risk
cultivated land was also withdrawn, but in 2009 new options were introduced for buffer
strips for watercourses on cultivated land; enhanced management of maize crops to reduce
soil erosion and runoff; and maintenance of watercourse fencing. These were followed in
2010 by two further new options: in-field grass areas to prevent erosion and run-off; and
winter cover crops.
In a survey carried out by Momenta in 2007, 28 per cent of respondents said they needed to
change their practices to comply with the SPR. However, in a survey carried out by ADAS et
al (2009), 50 per cent said that they would need to make changes. The SPR was second only
to buffer strips (GAEC 14) in the amount of concern created among farmers following its
introduction. ADAS et al (2009) quoted press coverage indicating that farmers believed that
it created extra costs by going beyond legislative requirements for environmental
enhancement. Findings from practitioner workshops and expert interviews indicated that,
while GAEC 1 had raised awareness of soil issues, the SPR was viewed as having little or no
value by many farmers. It was often considered to be a ‘box-ticking’ exercise and an
unnecessary burden, making farmers reluctant to complete it. Some breaches were
recorded, reaching 3.6 per cent in 2007.
Scotland, in contrast, has five separate more prescriptive GAEC standards for soil erosion,
but the standard for buffer strips has not yet been implemented. Within entry-level
schemes the only option to manage soil erosion is 1.5 - 6m buffer strips.
Source: UK case study
45 http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/rdpe/sectf.htm#q17, accessed 18 March 2011
51
5.2.4 Distinguishing reference level and agri-environment requirements at farm level
The administratively clear-cut distinction between what is required by the reference level
and what is paid for under an agri-environment contract may be less obvious on the ground.
This is illustrated by riparian buffer strips, which will become a compulsory GAEC standard
from 2012 and are already a component of both GAEC and agri-environment schemes in
many RDPs. Typically, where farmers implement the agri-environment option, there will be
a single buffer strip of which the section nearest the water is required by GAEC and is
unfertilised but may be cropped or grazed, although some Member States may choose to
restrict this; for example in Finland and England (UK) cultivation is prohibited. The width of
the GAEC section is 0.6m in Finland, 2m in England, 3m in the Czech Republic and 5m in
Bulgaria and France. Adjoining this, on the field side will be the agri-environment strip,
typically of unfertilised grassland, sometimes using special seed mixes and mowing regimes
to benefit biodiversity; these may be up to 2.4m wide in Finland and 12m in the Czech
Republic and the UK (England). The payment calculations are straightforward because it is
clear how much of the whole width is an unpaid GAEC requirement, but on the ground the
distinction may not always be easy for the farmer to understand. In Finland the width of
buffer strip required varies with the importance of the watercourse (minor ditches have no
requirement, main ditches must have a 0.6 m reference level strip plus an additional 0.4m 2.4m strip if the farmer has an the entry-level agri-environment contract). Yet in some cases
a single ditch between two farms, both in agri-environment contracts, will have no buffer
strip on one side and a 1m strip on the other because the farmers differ in their
interpretation of ‘main ditch’. One source in Finland46 reported that farmers feel confused
and frustrated with the distinction between the reference level and agri-environment
requirements, seen as one more level of complexity for which the rationale is not
understood47. This is a potentially serious problem, if not all farmers understand that the
two requirements are linked and sanctions for non-compliance affect the whole support
package.
5.2.5 Possible changes to the reference level for the 2014-20 RDPs
The risk of farmers failing to understand the distinction between reference level and agrienvironment requirements, and possibly incurring penalties for several CAP payments, is
relevant in the context of a new ‘green’ CAP payment in 2014. This proposed Pillar 1
payment is conditional upon farmers implementing agricultural practices beneficial to
climate change and the environment48 and the required management actions would then
become part of the baseline for agri-environment payments, alongside the existing
reference level. The proposed greening requirements include management actions
commonly used in entry-level elements of agri-environment schemes in many Member
46 Source: interview with ProAgria, for FInland case study
47 Source: interview with ProAgria, for FInland case study
48
Three requirements have been defined. Crop diversification: three different crops to be grown on arable
land over 3 hectares, with no crop covering less than 5 per cent of the area and the main crop covering no
more than 70 per cent. Permanent grassland: maintain 95 per cent of the area of permanent grassland on
the holding as declared in 2014. Ecological Focus Areas: 7 per cent of the holding (excluding permanent
grassland) must be managed as ecological focus areas, examples of which include landscape features, fallow
land and buffer strips (European Commission COM(2010) 672 final).
52
States, and will require changes to some current schemes and payment rates, especially
those applicable to intensive arable cropping systems. Box 5.3 illustrates the extent to which
similar actions to the proposed Pillar 1 green measures are found in agri-environment
schemes in the 2007-13 RDPs.
Box 5.3: Proposed CAP ‘greening’ requirements within existing entry-level agrienvironment schemes
Crop diversification occurs in 27 RDPs, in the form of requirements for crop rotations,
generally specifying between three and five crop types and aimed at cereal cropping, but
also applied to vegetable crops such as potatoes. A requirement to the include legumes in a
crop rotation was identified in 17 RDPs, often with a minimum area specified.
Maintenance of permanent grassland is a farm-level agri-environment requirement in 20
RDPs, and forms part of the reference level in several others, in national regulations or GAEC
standards. Typically the agri-environment requirements prohibit conversion to arable land
and may also restrict ploughing/reseeding of the grassland.
Ecological focus areas are defined in the proposed legislative text49 as farmland (other than
permanent grassland) managed for environmental purposes rather than agricultural
production and may include, for example, landscape features, fallow land and buffer strips.
The land out of production category used in this study has a much narrower definition
(similar to that used in the past for set-aside) and was found in 19 RDPs, all but one of them
in the EU-1550. The area of land out of production is sometimes quoted as a percentage of
the holding or cropped area and sometimes in hectares, making comparisons between RDPs
difficult, but commonly the requirement is between three and ten per cent of the holding.
Other types of entry-level management action may also take land out of production, for
example strips or patches for wildlife, areas of rotational fallow and buffer strips. Entry-level
agri-environment schemes in more than half the RDPs include the category of landscape
feature management.
5.3 Calculating payment rates
The way in which agri-environment payments are calculated is defined in the rural
development Regulations51, which also set out maximum payment rates per hectare for
different crops. Payments are annual, covering ‘additional costs and income foregone
resulting from the commitment made’ with the possibility of adding transaction costs of up
to 20 per cent ‘where necessary’.
There are several difficulties in using this apparently straightforward calculation to arrive at
a payment rate which farmers perceive as appropriate. Although Member States are
expected to differentiate payments to take appropriate account of regional or local site
49
The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future
(COM(2010) 672 final)
50
Austria, Finland, Germany (Bavaria, Niedersachsen and Bremen, Rhineland Pfalz, Saarland), Greece, Spain
(Basque Country, Castilla la Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Navarra), France, Finland, Ireland, Italy (Emilia
Romagna, Toscana, Umbria, Venetto) and UK (Wales).
51 Article 39(4) of Regulation 1698/2005
53
conditions and actual land use, the calculation is necessarily based on a typical farm in the
target group, which means that the diversity of this group and the way in which the
authorities define the farm’s costs will affect how well the scheme payment matches the
actual circumstances of individual farms. Also there may be some costs borne by the farmer
which are not covered by the payment calculation, especially if Member States consider that
transaction costs are unnecessary. The payment calculation for two similar schemes in the
Czech Republic and UK is shown in Table 5.3 and more examples of payment calculations
are in Annex 6.
Table 5.3: Agri-environment payment calculations for extensive grassland management in
the Czech Republic and the UK
Czech Republic
Grassland management - meadows (B1)

Summary of the required management


Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
EUR/ha
Gross margin on meadows with typical
level of fertilising (80 kg N/ha)
Gross margin on meadows with reduced
level of fertilising (40 kg N/ha)
Savings
N/A
Total savings
219
Limits to fertiliser application (no more that 60 kg
N/ha/year);
Prohibition of slurry (except for cattle slurry);
Cutting regime (minimum 2 cuts/year and removal of
mown biomass).
144
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
75
Nil
Nil
75
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
England (UK)
Summary of the required management
75
Permanent grassland with low inputs outside Severely
Disadvantaged Area of the LFA (EK2)






Management by cutting or grazing;
Cutting, harrowing and rolling are prohibited between 1
April and 31 May;
A range of sward heights should be maintained through
the season, with at least 20 per cent less than seven
centimetres and 20 per cent more than seven centimetres
(except when shut up for hay or silage);
Topping and herbicide use (by spot application of weedwiper) are only allowed for control of injurious weeds and
invasive non-native species, or to control scrub invasion;
Feeders must be moved as often as required to prevent
poaching;
Nitrogen use is restricted to 50 kilograms per hectare as
inorganic fertiliser, or 100 kilograms total, including
54

organic manures;
Liming is allowed.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
EUR/ha52
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Costs saved
Total savings
460
285
165
450
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
10
100
100
110
Nil
Payment rate (97% of net costs)
106
5.3.1 Management requirements covered by the payment calculations
The management requirements covered by the payment calculation is a matter of
judgement on the part of the managing authority, which may not necessarily coincide with
the farmers’ perceptions. For example in France the calculation for the current crop
diversification scheme does not take account of all the consequential costs of introducing
another crop into the rotation, such as finding new markets, additional storage and
specialist contractors. In Lazio (Italy) significant differences in costs as a result of geographic
factors and farming type are not taken into account.
In the Bulgarian entry-level scheme for HNV grassland the opportunity cost of prohibiting
new drainage and ploughing and the use of fertilisers and pesticides is not included in the
payment calculation, but payment rates for a similar NGO regional pilot scheme are almost
twice as much, calculated under RDP rules two years later. This is partly because more of
the management requirements were accounted for in the calculation, but it also covers the
loss of Pillar 1 income support payments under SAPS, which some HNV farmers are unable
to claim because of the way in which the GAEC requirements for permanent pasture are
defined (described in section 5.2.1 above).
In two other examples from Bulgaria there are significant costs borne by the farmer that are
not covered by the payment calculation. The soil erosion control scheme has a preapplication requirement to prepare a five-year anti-erosion plan and one of the actions
under the soil and water protection scheme requires farmers to take soil samples for
analysis of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium and prepare and implement a five year
nutrient management plan with the support of an advisor or qualified agronomist. The costs
of these specialist services have not been covered since the end of 2009, when these
services were no longer provided free of charge by the government advisory and laboratory
52 Payments have been converted from GBP using an exchange rate of £1 = EUR 1.25
55
service53, but agri-environment payments were not changed to reflect this additional cost,
nor was provision transferred to the free Farm Advisory Service (FAS). In the second
example, the combination of the original GAEC requirement to clear all unwanted
vegetation and a decision not to implement the RDP measure for non-productive
investments in Bulgaria has meant that farmers who want to join an agri-environment
scheme specifically targeted at undergrazed/underutilized HNV areas first have to clear
excessive overgrowth of unwanted vegetation at their own expense. This can be a
significant cost in the first year and a disincentive to participate in the scheme.
It is to be expected that there will be differences between schemes in the ‘costs incurred’
element of the calculation, as a result of different management actions, input, labour and
machinery costs, but there are also some differences in the ‘costs saved’ element too, which
seem to be less easily explained. For example, the calculation for winter cover crops in
Poland includes a saving in nitrogen fertiliser applied to the following crop, but this is not
included in the calculation for the cover crop schemes in the Czech Republic.
5.3.2 Proportion of the net cost calculation used as the payment rate
Payment rates in the case studies vary in the way they are calculated and the degree to
which the full net costs are used as the payment. There is no obligation on Member States
to use the full net cost derived from the payment calculation as the payment rate offered to
farmers, and there are some notable differences in the proportion used, even within the
same RDP. The following analysis applies specifically to the entry-level schemes selected for
study within the case study RDPs, using data gathered for this study from national sources.
Finland and the Czech Republic are the only case study countries routinely to use 100 per
cent of the cost calculation. In Bulgaria all payments theoretically cover 100 per cent of the
costs but in practice the Institute of Agricultural Economics does not have adequate data
available to ensure an accurate estimation of costs, and this is reflected in comments from
farmers and advisers about the adequacy of payments54. As many as 75 per cent of all agrienvironmental respondent beneficiaries stated that the measure had ‘hidden costs that I did
not expect’ (Bulgaria RDP MTE, 2010).
In Poland the proportion of net costs used for the payment rate varies, for example from 56
per cent for winter catch crops on arable land to more than 80 per cent for the extensive
53
The free advice was funded under measure 143 provision of advisory services to farmers; in Bulgaria and
Romania until 2009 this covered RDP measures for young farmers, semi-subsistence and agri-environment,
but from 2010 to 2013 it only provides free advice for the semi-subsistence measure. Until the end of 2009
under this scheme the National Agriculture Advisory Service (NAAS) advisors were paid to develop the whole
package of the necessary documents of the farmers to participate in the agri-environment schemes. This
also included the preparation of the nutrient management plans. The requirement for soil N,P,K analysis
was not included in the payment calculation because when the measure was designed (NAAS) had a
laboratory doing this analysis free of charge for farmers. Due to structural reforms the situation within NAAS
was changed and the laboratory is not part of the advisory services anymore. The payment rates were not
changed correspondingly.
54 Source: Bulgaria case study.
56
arable and extensive grassland management schemes and 100 per cent for buffer strips. In
England (UK) the rates generally vary between 68 per cent and 100 per cent of calculated
costs, and in France there are smaller differences between the schemes studied (up to 103
per cent for the rotational scheme and 95 per cent for the grassland scheme). In Italy there
are differences between schemes and regions, with 100 per cent coverage of costs for the
soil management, crop rotation and permanent grassland schemes in Lombardia, and for
the permanent crop scheme in Campania. Other payments are geographically
differentiated, for example in Campania payments for using organic fertilisers appear to
vary between 93 per cent and 100 per cent and between 89 per cent and 100 per cent for
the extensive pasture scheme, depending on which ‘macro-area’ the farm is in. These
differences appear to be even greater in Lazio where the green manuring and crop rotation
payments appear to cover only 49 per cent of the costs for farms in the lowland plain but 70
per cent of those in hilly areas55.
One example was found where the payment calculation was adjusted to encourage farmers
to make more environmentally beneficial choices. In England (UK) costs are calculated for
different widths of buffer strips (2 metre, 4 metre and 6 metre) but for simplicity and to
encourage uptake of the wider strips, seen as more beneficial for the environment, the
same rate was set for the 4 metre and 6 metre wide buffer strips, at 400 points (equivalent
to £400/€500) per hectare, which covered more 100 per cent of the income foregone, but
the 2m wide strips were allocated a lower rate of only 77 per cent of income foregone (300
points per hectare).
5.3.3 Transaction costs
Finland is the only Member State among the seven case studies to apply transaction costs to
all entry-level payments, at the full rate of 20 per cent, intended to cover the costs and time
spent by farmers in understanding the requirements, searching for information and possibly
using advisory services; in Italy transaction costs are used to a limited extent In two of the
three regions studied (Campania and Lombardia). It is perhaps surprising that so few of the
case study regions have included transaction costs in payment calculations. There appears
to be scope to use transaction costs more widely to overcome some of the disincentives for
participation in entry-level schemes, both where these are being introduced nationally for
the first time as in Poland and Bulgaria, and elsewhere in some established schemes. For
example, in Italy the burden of transaction costs and administration is a point often raised
by farmers and seems to be the main reason for the rather low uptake of the current agrienvironment programme compared to the results obtained under previous programming
periods and Regulation 2078/199256.
5.3.4 Differentiation of payment rates by farming system or farm size
This section describes examples where payment rates for the same agri-environment
scheme differ by farming system, farm size or in geographically designated zones. There are
likely to be several possible reasons for managing authorities to decide to differentiate
payments in this way. The most obvious is that income or cost calculations differ, but the
55 Source: Italy case study
56 Source: Italy case study
57
reasons for using degressive payments are less clear, perhaps related to perceived
economies of scale, or cost-effective use of funds.
Farming system
Where entry-level actions are applicable to several different types of farm it is common for
the payment rates to differ, reflecting differences in costs and income foregone between
systems. For example the payment for the same five compulsory measures in Finland varies
from €93 per hectare for arable crops to €450 per hectare for Group 1 horticultural crops.
Farm size
Three of the case study examples have payments that are degressive by area, one applying
to entry-level payments generally, and the others only to certain schemes, as shown in Box
5.4
Box 5.4: Examples of degressive agri-environment payments
In the Lazio region of Italy entry-level agri-environment payments are degressive, with the per hectare
payment decreasing as farm size increases:
< 50 ha
no reduction
from 50 to 100 ha
reduced by 15%
from 100 to 150 ha
reduced by 20%
from 150 to 200 ha
reduced by 25%
> 200 ha
reduced by 30%
In Poland a similar process is used but payment rates are degressive only for extensification schemes, and this
does not apply to Natura 2000 land, irrespective of the scheme. For the sustainable agriculture scheme
payments per hectare drop in two stages:
< 100 ha
no reduction
from 100 to 200 ha
reduced by 50%
> 200 ha
reduced by 90%
and in three stages for the extensive meadows and pastures scheme:
< 10 ha
no reduction
from 10 to 50 ha
reduced by 25%
from 50 to 100 ha
reduced by 50%
> 100 ha
reduced by 90%
In Scotland (UK), where some farms on marginal land have very large areas of upland semi-natural grazing,
there is a cap on total payments per farm per year from the entry-level scheme57 calculated by applying the
following rates to the total area of the farm:
€94 per hectare for the first 10 hectares;
€38 per hectare for the next 90 hectares;
€1 per hectare for the next 900 hectares; and
€0.1 per hectare for remaining land (> 1000 hectares).
Source: case studies
57 This
scheme also includes farm-level support under the forestry, Axis 1 and Axis 3 measures. Payments have
been converted from GBP using an exchange rate of GBP1 = €1.25.
58
5.3.5 Scheme payment structures
The schemes studied in the seven Member States show that even within dedicated entrylevel schemes there are many variations in the way in which payments are structured and
presented to the farmer. These include:






‘classic’ separate thematic schemes each with a list of obligatory management
actions and a flat rate euro per hectare payment for the area of land entered into
the scheme, as in the Czech Republic;
separate thematic schemes, but instead of a flat rate payment by hectare, the
payment per hectare is degressive as the number of hectares entered into the
scheme on that farm increases - the schemes for sustainable agriculture and
extensive grasslands in Poland follow this model;
the all-compulsory entry-level scheme in Finland which has six elements which apply
to different land or features across the whole farm, five of them paid as a single flat
rate payment per hectare for the whole farm, plus a sixth compulsory element paid
at a flat rate per hectare managed (as land out of production) with the farmer able
choose the proportion of the arable land to enter (within defined minimum and
maximum percentages);
a self-selection scheme in England (UK) with a very long list of different management
options, each with a notional payment rate per hectare or other unit (eg per 100
metres of hedge) managed under that option; the farmer can choose options but
must apply these to a sufficient area of land so that the sum of all the notional
payments reaches the farm’s payment threshold (equivalent to the scheme’s flat
rate payment per hectare multiplied by the area of farm). Payment is made as a
standard flat rate payment per hectare for the whole farm, but this does not
increase even if the farmer implements more options than the threshold requires;
a self-selection scheme in Scotland (UK), which includes not just entry-level agrienvironment schemes but also forestry and Axis 1 and Axis 3 options. Each agrienvironment option has its own payment rate, paid per hectare of land to which it
applies. There is no threshold, but the total payments to the farm under this scheme
(agri-environment, forestry and Axis 1 and 3 options) are capped according to the
farm size, as described above;
flat rate payments per hectare differentiated by bio-geographical zone, by farm type,
crop type or soil type, as described in Box 5.4 above.
5.4 Targeting entry-level schemes by payments, eligibility or management actions
There are several ways of refining the design and targeting of entry-level schemes to meet
differing environmental or agricultural needs, including setting different payment rates for
defined geographical areas, limiting eligibility to certain zones, or having several versions of
a single package of management actions, suited to different circumstances on the ground.
In Campania (Italy) some payments are differentiated by ‘macro areas’, and in another
Italian region, Lazio, payments differ between lowland and hill farms. In England the flat rate
payment is the same everywhere except on parcels of more than 15 hectares within the
‘moorland zone’ (a defined zone of semi-natural upland heath used for low-intensity
grazing), where it is much lower. However, upland farmers have the choice of an alternative
entry-level scheme available only in the uplands, with different management options and
59
payment calculations, and a flat rate payment per hectare twice that of the all-England
scheme. In Finland there are three geographical zones for payment calculations, and in most
cases the payment rates differ between zones (the management requirements may differ
too). There is no geographical differentiation of payments in the schemes studied in
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France or Poland.
Bio-physical eligibility criteria are used in many different ways. Some schemes define the
type of land within the farm where the management action is to be used, for example
riparian buffer strips, while others also target specific zones at a larger scale. In Campania
(Italy) eligibility for the payments to improve soil organic content is limited to farmland of
certain defined soil types, and in Lazio (Italy) the soil cover schemes for arable and
permanent crops are prioritised in nitrate vulnerable areas, Natura 2000 and other
protected areas, with additional criteria of slope for the arable scheme. In the Bulgarian
scheme to control soil erosion, priority is given to applicants with arable land, pastures,
orchards and/or vineyards within municipalities with moderate to severe erosion problems.
In the Czech Republic there is detailed field-level targeting of soil protection and other agrienvironment schemes, including higher-level grassland schemes, fully integrated with the
LPIS system (for details see Box 7.1).
Differentiation of management actions to improve environmental outcomes is typically used
in higher-level schemes, for example to target specific types of management at different
types of grazed habitats, but is also found occasionally in entry-level schemes. There are
many examples of variants of a scheme designed to achieve slightly different environmental
objectives. For example there are options for using biodiversity seeds mixes on buffer strips
in the Czech Republic and also in England (UK), where the options for hedgerow
management, permanent grassland and cereal stubbles all have a number of variants. In
Finland the scheme to take land out of production has a biodiversity option, described in
Box 5.5. Poland and Bulgaria each designed entry-level schemes with specific management
options targeted at maintaining the biodiversity value of different types of semi-natural
grasslands (a significant environmental resource in both Member States) but in both cases
Table 5.4: Entry-level extensive grassland management schemes in Poland
2004-06 RDP
2007-13 RDP
sub-scheme
payment €/ha
scheme
payment €/ha
semi-natural meadow cut once by
219
hand
128
semi-natural meadow cut once by
85
(then degressive
machine
extensively
above 10, 50 and
semi-natural meadow cut twice
187
managed meadows
100ha, except in
xerothermic pastures
64
and pastures
Natura 2000
lowland pastures
85
areas)
mountain pastures 350-500m
49
mountain pastures >500m
120
Source: Poland case study
these have been simplified. In Poland, the 2004-06 scheme differentiated seven types of
grassland management and by far the greatest uptake was for meadows cut twice a year,
which required least change to existing practice. Management requirements and payment
rates were simplified significantly for the 2007-13 programme (as shown in Table 5.4), which
60
has meant a loss of capacity in the entry-level scheme to differentiate management by type
of semi-natural grassland.
5.5 Factors influencing uptake of entry-level agri-environment schemes
The uptake of the entry-level agri-environment schemes in the case studies varies
enormously, from insignificant to more than 90 per cent of all farmers in one Member State.
Many different factors influence farmers’ uptake of the entry-level agri-environment
schemes studied here. The most positive effect on uptake seems to be a combination of
management actions that fit easily into the existing farming system and payment rates
which farmers regard as adequate, although there are examples of successful schemes with
low payment rates. In some cases the contribution of multi-annual payments to sustaining
farm income may also be a significant factor, especially for extensive livestock systems.
Negative influences on uptake include inadequate payments rates, alternative economically
attractive uses for the land, management actions perceived as a risk to the farming system,
lack of technical capacity or understanding on the part of the farmer, and institutional
problems in scheme delivery. Examples of these influences are considered here, followed by
a discussion of the importance of uptake of entry-level schemes in the wider policy context.
5.5.1
Agri-environment management requirements within the context of the farming
system
One of the common and perhaps defining characteristics of successful entry-level schemes
(in terms of uptake) is that they fit well with management that is already in place, or can be
adopted without significant change to the running of the farm. In some cases this effect
apparently overrides the influence of payment rates, irrespective of whether these are
perceived as attractive or as insufficient.
Farmers’ differing responses to agri-environment options taking land out of production
In the UK farmers seem to be more willing to undertake agri-environment management
options which do not apply to productive land, especially if these are easily managed and
have a low impact on productivity. This can be illustrated by the example of buffer strips in
England. There was considerable resistance to the imposition of the GAEC standard on
protection of hedgerows and watercourses that required a strip of two metres from the
centre of the hedge or watercourse to be left uncultivated, even though the amount of
productive land and yield likely to be lost was very small, once the width of the hedge is
allowed for plus the low productivity of land at the very edge of the field. Despite this
resistance, buffer have proved to be a popular choice, particularly on arable farms, because
no changes are required to the management of the productive part of the field, and the land
taken out of production is understood to have a low yield potential. Buffer strips are a much
less familiar concept in Poland, and experience has been very different. Uptake was poor in
the 2004-06 programme, and payment rates for both riparian and non-riparian buffer strips
were increased by around 70 per cent, to €574 per hectare and €521 per hectare
respectively, for the current programme; despite these higher payment rates, now set at
100 per cent of the net costs, uptake has dropped still further to negligible levels, just 142
km of riparian buffer strips by the end of 2010. One of the reasons seems to be that farmers
regard buffer strips as a completely new activity58, additional to their routine management.
58 Source: interviews with farmers,
Poland case study.
61
There is also poor uptake of grass buffer strips in Bulgaria where, according to government
advisors, payment rates of €27 per hectare are too low and farmers are not interested.
A very different response has been seen in Finland, where almost all farmers already
participate in the entry-level scheme, and a combination of flexible management, payment
rates and ease of implementation has contributed to the initial success of a new scheme to
take arable land out of production (Box 5.5).
Box 5.5: Success of a new scheme taking arable land out of production in Finland
This is a new, compulsory scheme for ‘nature management fields’ on arable land within
entry-level agri-environment contracts, aimed at resource protection and biodiversity,
which was introduced nationally to counteract the expected adverse effects from abolition
of CAP set-aside. In comparison with the preceding CAP set-aside, the scheme has a clear
environmental target, a requirement to apply it to least 5 per cent and up to 15 per cent of
the arable land area, and improved management for biodiversity.
Famers can choose from two main options: long-term grassland with up to 20% legumes,
which is not fertilised but may be used for fodder and must be mown at least once every 3
years (the bioenergy reed (Phalaris arundinacea) is an alternative to grass); and three types
of biodiversity field, sown with one of three seed mixtures containing either low-competitive
grasses and meadow plants, game food or amenity species to provide resources for wildlife
as well as landscape benefits. These may not be used for fodder. Payments are substantial
(€170/ha or €300/ha) compared to the other compulsory entry-level measures (€94/ha).
The measure has been very popular with farmers with participation rates in mainland
Finland of 5.9 per cent in 2009, 7.4 per cent in 2010 and 6.6 per cent in 2011. The factors
contributing to the success are low cereal prices with high production costs, the payment
rate, flexibility in management requirements (mowing only once in three years, no biomass
removal required) and the possibility of using the mown biomass or grazing the land. The
clear environmental outputs of the measure (including improved soil conditions) have been
quoted as incentives to join (Herzon et al, 2011).
Most of the parcels enrolled in this scheme are former set-aside land or fields of low
fertility, awkward size or situated far from the farm (Mäkinen et al, 2010). About 40 per cent
of all the land entered was existing grassland or former set-aside and about 50 per cent
were established after cereals (from a sample of about 100 fields) and only one reported
use of fertilisers at establishment (Herzon et al, 2011). Thus the actual income forgone is
likely to be considerably lower than that estimated for the payment calculation which
assumed that farmers would convert cereal fields into the nature management fields. In the
words of one of the farmers, this measure is the best since EU accession, being ‘beautiful
and useful’ (Herzon et al, 2011). However, the situation may change drastically with the
changes in cereal prices or with a possible shift of some of the fallowing obligation into the
reference level (pers. comm, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry).
Uptake of entry-level management in arable cropping systems
Agri-environment options for arable farms seem to have better uptake if there is an element
of synergy with the cropping system. In England (UK) options that involve adjustments to
62
the productive part of the field are generally characterised by low uptake, even though
these are in many cases likely to be the most environmentally beneficial (eg Vickery et al,
2008). An exception in terms of uptake is the entry-level option for stubble management
which is part of standard crop rotations on many farms, but levels are still lower than those
needed to reverse the decline of farmland birds for which this habitat is important (Gillings
et al, 2005). Current efforts In the UK to improve the environmental impacts of ELS are
focused on farm-level targeting of entry-level actions through the provision of more advice
and support for those entering ELS (see Chapter 7 for details).
In Poland, the two in-field arable schemes for winter catch crops after cereals have quite
good uptake, resulting in a significant increase in land under green cover in winter, despite
the fact that payment rates have been reduced both in rates per hectare and proportion of
net costs covered (now less than 60 per cent); crucially these schemes are seen to fit well
with other farm management59. Similarly, farmers in Lombardia (Italy) regard payment rates
for the scheme for nutrient planning and crop rotation as insufficient for the requirements,
yet this is the most popular scheme after integrated crop production. In contrast the arable
cover crop option In Lazio (Italy) has had no uptake, partly due to low payment rates, but
also because it is seen by farmers as a high risk in that it may affect the timeliness of
planting the following crop.
In some cases it can be specific details of the management actions which cause farmers to
reject agri-environment opportunities. In Campania the option to improve soil organic
matter has been implemented on just 0.2 per cent of the region’s arable land, and the main
reason for this failure is farmers’ lack of confidence in quality of the organic fertiliser
supplied by external firms. The certification of the fertiliser is seen by the farmers as
insufficient to guarantee safety standards and avoid possible contamination in the food
chain (and poor experience with the waste management in Campania might have amplified
the problems with such products). Elsewhere farmers’ concerns about management actions
have not affected uptake. In the Czech Republic farmers in the extensive pasture
management scheme complained that it was too complicated to observe nitrogen limits by
calculating the nitrogen deposited by grazing animals and then adjusting the stocking rate
accordingly, but this did not seem to affect uptake of the scheme. In Finland it was feared
that a fairly substantial reduction (for the current RDP) in the maximum allowed levels of
arable fertilisers for the entry-level agri-environment scheme would have a profound effect
on the farmer participation. In reality, the changes may have restricted the entry of a few
farmers with particularly large amounts of manure per arable area available for spreading,
in a region specialised in intensive dairy. However, this was not a common phenomenon and
did not affect the participation rate on a national scale.
In the Czech Republic the objectives of the scheme for soil and water protection seem to be
well understood by farmers, but an important factor in their decision to participate is the
opportunity cost of converting arable land to extensive grassland for several years,
preventing them from using it for potentially more profitable crops.
59 Source: interviews with experts, Poland case study.
63
Grassland scheme uptake linked to the economic sustainability of extensive livestock systems
In the case of entry-level schemes for extensive grassland management, the contribution to
farm income may be a factor in uptake, especially where an existing extensive livestock
system is economically marginal and potentially at risk of change which would lead to loss of
environmental benefits.
In Poland the most popular scheme in both RDPs has been extensive grassland
management, seen by farmers as an incentive to maintain extensive livestock production
rather than intensify or abandon semi-natural grassland; by the end of 2010 this scheme
was implemented on 18 per cent of the land and 57 per cent of the farms in agrienvironment schemes60, spread across almost all the grassland areas of Poland. In the Czech
Republic the schemes for extensive management of pastures and meadows have changed
little between programme periods, and both have exceeded target uptake. Success is
attributed to achieving the right balance between prescriptions demanding change in farm
practices and payment levels; also the security of income from extensification compared to
market uncertainties has made the schemes attractive. An additional factor is that meadow
management is rather simple and farmers understand better the objectives of this grassland
scheme than those of the more targeted higher-level schemes (Prazan, 2011). Some farmers
perceive this agri-environment scheme as another form of income support, conditioned by
some management prescriptions and cross-compliance requirements. In the Czech schemes
payments are not degressive, and large farms with hundreds or thousands of hectares of
grassland may be encouraged to apply because economy of scale makes it possible to
convert even a small gross margin per hectare from extensive production into worthwhile
income. There are no signs of differences in uptake by farm type (other than by farms
converting to specialised grazing), but research suggests that although around 380,000 ha of
HNV grassland habitats within protected areas or designated Natura 2000 sites are managed
under higher-level schemes, a significant area (approximately 170,000 hectares) of
grassland habitats of similarly high quality, but unprotected, are in most cases managed only
under these entry-level schemes.
The profitability of alternative land management options is also likely to affect uptake. In
France evaluation studies suggested that the extensive grassland schemes have mostly
maintained existing practices, but no counterfactual modelling was done to confirm this.
Other observers point out that farmers who left the PHAE grassland scheme were attracted
by arable cropping and intensification of livestock breeding, and that the existence of this
scheme probably slowed down this process.
Campania is one of the few regions in the Central-Southern Italy that implements an option
for extensive management of permanent pasture, and the good level of implementation
(27,000 hectares in 2009, 10 per cent of the regional grassland) is clearly linked to the high
level of payments, which are on average two or three times more than in the Alpine areas.
The maintained pasture is generally quite dispersed but there are also some farmers for
whom the agri-environment payment was an incentive to set up a new livestock farm.
Regional officers argue that the payment level is justified when farmers apply for contracts
60 At the end of 2010. Source: Agency for Restructuring and
Poland.
64
Modernisation of Agriculture, the paying agency in
in areas subject to abandonment. In these areas there is no alternative agricultural land use
and shepherding is not an attractive occupation. In Scotland (UK) the relatively high level of
uptake of the option for summer cattle grazing, despite the very low payment (only about a
sixth of that for the mixed stocking option in England), suggests that where cattle are
already present on the farm, significant changes may not be required in existing
management. Where cattle are not present on the farm, it is unlikely that the low levels of
incentive payments will motivate farmers to acquire them. The impact of these options
therefore is most likely to be to encourage the maintenance of cattle grazing where this
already exists61.
5.5.2 Capacity of the farmer and farm business
There is some evidence that the capacity of the farmer and farm business (in terms of
technical knowledge and understanding, administrative ability and cash flow) can have an
effect on uptake. For example in Poland the entry-level scheme for sustainable farming
(arable extensification) is relatively successful, with participation by 18 per cent of the
farmers on 28 per cent of the land in agri-environment schemes62. Research by
Niewęgłowska (2009) showed that farms in this scheme tended already to have good
agricultural management, could afford the necessary investment and would perceive the
payment rates as more than covering their additional costs. Other studies showed that this
scheme is implemented in the areas with lower than average levels of permanent grassland
(the payment applies only to arable land) and where the risks of soil erosion are low (Filipiak
and Duer (2009), Niewęgłowska (2006)). This would help to explain why much of the uptake
has been in Northern Poland in areas dominated by intensive agriculture and large farms. It
is possible that the capacity problems may affect certain groups of farmers more than
others. Research on entry-level implementation in the 2004-06 period in Poland noted the
low level of environmental awareness of farmers and problems with documentation
Golinowska (2006), and interviews with farmers undertaken for the ex-post evaluation of
that RDP (MARA,2009) showed that 23 per cent of agri-environment beneficiaries found the
documentation too difficult.
The problem of high upfront costs at the start of an agri-environment contract is discussed
in section 5.3.1 in the context of payment calculations for the Bulgarian HNV grassland
scheme. There is some evidence that similar unevenness of expenditure may affect the
Czech Republic scheme to convert arable land to grassland, where uptake seems to be
constrained by the need for significant expenditure on specified seed mixtures at the start
of the contract, which has an adverse effect on cash flow63.
The role of support services in the delivery of entry-level agri-environment schemes is
discussed more generally in Chapter 7, but there is evidence that some entry-level schemes
already use site-specific technical advice of a type more usually associated with higher level
61 Source: UK case study.
62 At the end of 2010. Source: Agency for Restructuring and
Poland.
63 Farmer interviews, Czech Republic case study.
65
Modernisation of Agriculture, the paying agency in
agri-environment schemes - and that others would benefit from quite basic advice.
Technical input from a consultant is required in Lazio to undertake soil analysis and prepare
fertilisation and cropping plans, and most farmers have access to some technical support
through the farmers’ association. Similar input is required in Bulgaria, but withdrawal of free
government advice has caused problems (see section 6.2.1 below). Elsewhere on-farm
technical support may be necessary, even if it is not specified in the scheme requirements,
for example in Scotland where the location of buffer strips has to be determined by a diffuse
pollution audit, or In Lombardia (Italy) where there is a requirement to adopt a government
defined fertilisation plan. The Italian case study notes that the permanent crops grass cover
option in Lazio would benefit from better technical advice to avoid mismanagement by the
farmers; this was illustrated when a technical service for nut growers was able to show
farmers that the agri-environment management would not limit their cropping system, as
they feared. In Campania the potential benefits of a permanent crops scheme is
overshadowed by lack of understanding on the part of the farmers who believe that the
green cover could be interpreted by the product buyers as bad management of the whole
crop, with a consequent negative effect on the price. In addition, competition between crop
and grass for water and a slight decrease in the yield of the permanent crop in the first two
years makes it difficult for farmers to appreciate the positive effects for product quality and
yield in the medium term, in addition to soil protection. The provision of adequate advisory
services would be helpful.
5.5.3 Institutional problems with delivery of entry-level schemes
The previous sections considered the effect on uptake of decisions by individual farmers to
participate in entry-level agri-environment schemes, but there are examples from the case
studies where decisions by the managing authorities or failures in the delivery process have
influenced uptake.
The most serious problems are in Bulgaria where a well-designed entry-level programme
was ready for the start of the RDP 2007-2013, but almost four years later there was still very
limited experience of implementation, and minimal uptake. HNV farmland is a key priority in
both biodiversity and agri-environment policy, but decisions by the managing authority on
the definition of agricultural land for LPIS and the implementation of GAEC left very large
areas of environmentally important HNV grassland ineligible for both SAPS and agrienvironment support (see Box 5.6). As a result, by 2009 less than 2 per cent of more than 1
million hectares of HNV permanent pasture identified in 2007 was in agri-environment
contracts. Changes have been made to GAEC standards to make it possible for land excluded
from SAPS payments to enter the HNV agri-environment scheme, but this has not been
reflected in payment rates.
On land which is eligible there have also been problems with delivery and control processes
in Bulgaria. The first nation-wide agri-environment scheme opened in 2008 but significant
delays in processing applications followed by very long delays in making payments has
reduced applications. In 2008, for the HNV1 scheme for undergrazed grasslands of high
biodiversity value, there were applications covering 33,927 ha of which 95 per cent were
authorized for payment; however within this group were a large number of ‘zero’ payments,
which significantly reduced the number of farms actually supported. No data is provided by
the Paying Agency on the level of farmers’ compliance with the requirements, but the large
66
Box 5.6: Targeted HNV grasslands in Bulgaria ineligible for support
The geographical coverage of this basic entry-level scheme for HNV grasslands comprises all
permanent pastures identified as HNV areas at the level of agricultural land parcel (LPIS).
During RDP preparation in 2007, the total area of these HNV permanent pasture parcels was
as much as 1,138,981 ha (RDP version 4, July 2010), but the impact target for this scheme in
2007-13 is 200,000 ha, or less than one fifth of the initially identified HNV permanent
pastures.
A statement by the Ministry of Agriculture in the 2009 campaign year stated that the area of
permanent pastures defined in good agricultural condition in 2007 was only 738,145 ha,
meaning that 400,836 ha of permanent grasslands previously identified as HNV had failed to
meet the requirements for SAPS payments. The main reason for this was that the
compulsory GAEC standard for protection of permanent pastures included the requirement
that ‘permanent pastures or meadows must be cleared of unwanted bushes’, which meant
that, in order to receive the area-based payments, farmers started cleaning shrubs and
bushes (sometimes even cutting trees). This led to destruction of some valuable and
protected habitats. This GAEC requirement, combined with the large areas of abandoned
land (mainly permanent pasture but also arable land) led to problems for land’s eligibility for
support. Most of this land was categorized as code 6 ‘other agricultural land’ in the Land
Parcel Identification System (LPIS), defined as:
‘(1) land recognized by the orthophoto map as evidently abandoned arable land (which has
not been cultivated for more than 2 years); or
(2) agricultural land, which has not been included in physical blocks with codes from 1 to 5
due to a reason of not meeting the minimum size (bigger than 0.01 but smaller than 0.1
ha)’.
The areas which were in the physical blocks under the famous code 6’ in 2007 were
excluded from support and farmers were sanctioned for ‘over-declaration’. This was
relevant for both SAPS payments and area-based payments under Axis 2 measures
(especially LFA and agri-environment payments).
In addition to these problems in accessing CAP support, the area of permanent pastures in
good agricultural condition was reduced by the Ministry of Agriculture to 435,597 ha in
2009. Surprisingly, this important decision was not discussed at all with the farming
community.
These decisions have a huge negative impact on the uptake and participation in the HNV
schemes in Bulgaria, and mean that in total there are 703,384 ha of HNV permanent
pastures in Bulgaria which have been excluded from SAPS support. By 2009 only 20,336 ha
of HNV pastures had been authorised for payment under the entry-level HNV scheme, just
over 10 per cent of an already modest target, and only 1.8 per cent of the HNV permanent
grassland identified in 2007.
67
number of reduced and ‘zero’ payments suggests that there is significant non-compliance. In
the case of the scheme for in-field erosion control strips the main factor limiting uptake is
believed to be the short application period, theoretically one month, but in practice
sometimes less than 10 days.
There are issues of eligibility restricting uptake in other Member States, notably of entrylevel schemes for extensive pasture management on common grazing land. In certain parts
of Italy such land has been managed for many decades on the basis of annual contracts but
these graziers are not eligible for agri-environment schemes, which require a commitment
to a five-year contract. Similar problems occur in the UK, where many individual farmers
may have legal grazing rights over the same area of common land but neither the individual
farmers, nor the owner of the land, has control of the overall management to the extent
required by an agri-environment scheme. In the past this inhibited uptake of agrienvironment schemes on large areas of environmentally important upland farmland, but
the current entry-level schemes in England now offers groups of commoners a ‘standalone’
contract for the area of the common.
5.6 The wider significance of uptake of entry-level agri-environment schemes
The role of entry-level schemes in the context of other policy tools is to provide an incentive
for the majority of famers to undertake environmental management within the scope of
their current farming systems, and to act as an environmental baseline for more ambitious
agri-environment schemes, in terms both of land management actions and farmer capacity.
This raises questions about additionality and deadweight, the level of uptake required and
the extent of choice farmers have.
In the England (UK) entry-level scheme farmers have a very wide choice of options and it has
been suggested that their preference for agri-environment options that do not require
significant change from existing practices reduces additionality and creates a high degree of
deadweight (Hodge and Reader, 2010). However, the authors of the MTE of the current
RDPs in Scotland (UK) pointed out that: ‘care needs to be taken with regard to certain agrienvironmental activities where the assessment of what constitutes deadweight is complex
e.g. in maintaining an existing management regime’. The key question is ‘what would have
happened in the absence of the scheme?’ but this counterfactual is not always easy to
determine. In a rapidly changing world agriculture must constantly adapt, and maintenance
of environmentally favourable management practices that are becoming or likely to become
uneconomic may be as valuable in terms of outcomes as instigation of change in
management or adoption of new practices. This ‘protective’ function of entry-level schemes
applies both to the existing environmental benefits of marginally economic extensive
livestock systems on semi-natural grazing land, where there is risk of abandonment or
intensification; and to extensification of arable systems where there are opportunities for
conversion to more intensive cropping systems with greater environmental risks.
The appropriate level of uptake for entry-level schemes will depend on the scale and
location of the environmental risks being addressed (e.g. soil erosion or abandonment of
HNV grassland) but for many of the environmental objectives there are potential economies
of scale (e.g. for management benefiting farmland birds or reducing the risks of diffuse
pollution) which suggest both a need for substantial uptake and an element of targeting and
68
differentiation of entry-level management. Ensuring that land management requirements
are suited to local conditions and local needs is critical to achieving both additionality and
efficient and effective policy delivery.
From the farmers’ point of view, when there are frequently changing reference level
requirements and agri-environment options, making a decision about applying for an entrylevel agri-environment scheme has to be set in the context of other dynamics affecting the
farm business, which may also differ from one Member State to another. This ‘background
noise’ includes, for example, SPS historic payments already being converted to regional
payments, SAPS payments rising year on year, LFA changes, Article 68 payments, and
fluctuating fuel and commodity prices. The dynamic policy context also has an impact on the
design and delivery of entry-level schemes, as this study has illustrated. From the managing
authorities’ point of view, there appear to be rather different problems in achieving uptake
between two groups of Member States, those with long experience of implementing agrienvironment schemes (or relatively stable schemes and reference levels) and those that are
still introducing EU reference level standards, Pillar 1 payments and agri-environment
schemes, while their agriculture sector is restructuring. These differences are likely to take
considerable time to overcome.
69
6
THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING, REVISING AND IMPROVING AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
SCHEMES
This chapter examines the key aspects of the processes that the case study Member States
have adopted for setting up, revising and improving entry-level agri-environment schemes,
illustrated by examples of their experiences (good and bad) that would be relevant and
useful to inform the design and/or revision of entry-level agri-environment schemes in
future. The involvement and role of stakeholder groups in scheme design is also considered,
in the context of agri-environment schemes generally, not just entry-level.
6.1 Designing the 2007-13 entry-level agri-environment schemes
In most of the case studies the entry-level agri-environment schemes for the 2007-13
programming period were based on earlier schemes, modified to a greater or lesser extent,
although the detail of the changes and the reasons for them differ considerably, as does
their level of experience. Finland, France and the UK had relevant experience in designing
and implementing entry-level agri-environment or similar schemes over at least three
programming periods. In contrast, some of the EU-12 case studies had very little previous
experience, especially where there had been problems implementing the pre-accession
SAPARD scheme.
For example, although Bulgaria had previous agri-environment design experience, which
was used effectively, it had no practical experience of agri-environment delivery to draw
upon because the SAPARD pilot schemes were opened to farmers in 2006, when the 20072013 programme was already being designed. The four SAPARD pilot schemes formed the
basis for the new programme, and most of the actions remained the same or their scope
was enlarged (see Table 6.1), but the scheme for the management of semi-natural habitats
was substantially modified and renamed. Some of these changes were informed by
extensive consultations with NGOs and research institutes, whose input provided useful
evidence for the environmental justification of the proposals, both for the management
actions and their potential geographical scope.
In the Czech Republic the current agri-environment programme was modelled on the 200406 programme, which in turn had been guided by the design and evaluation of SAPARD pilot
schemes (implemented on five sites in different protected areas). These had provided useful
information on uptake, payment rates, transaction costs, farmers’ motivation to join the
schemes and their overall perception of the policy. Useful experience also came from
national grassland schemes, similar to entry-level agri-environment schemes, which had
operated since the 1990s.
In neighbouring Poland, the situation was very different, with large numbers of relatively
small uneconomic farms and problems of rural infrastructure and employment. Agrienvironment had not been a SAPARD priority, although there was an NGO-run pilot
programme as early as 199764. The design of the first national agri-environment programme
64
The project ‘A case study in the Green Lungs Area of Poland’ implemented by a consortium of: IUCN Office
for Central Europe and National Foundation for Environmental Protection, Avalon Foundation (NL), Veen
Ecology (NL) and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (UK).
70
Table 6.1: Comparison of the Bulgarian SAPARD pilot schemes and the initial 2007-2013
RDP agri-environment schemes (before modifications during the course of the
programme)
SAPARD pilot schemes (2000-2006)
Organic farming:
 fruit and vegetables;
 medicinal plants and herbs
 fodder crops
Endangered breeds of local farm animals:
 four breeds
Management of semi-natural habitats:
 semi-natural grasslands;
 farmed wetlands.
RDP 2007-2013 schemes
Organic farming:
 organic farming of all crops (OF);
 organic apiculture.
Traditional livestock breeding:
 27 local breeds (LB1);
 mountain pastoralism (LB2).
Restoration and management of HNV farmland:
 on undergrazed HNV grasslands (HNV1);
 on overgrazed HNV grasslands (HNV2);
these two grassland schemes were combined in 2010
Support to anti-erosion practices
 on arable lands in IBAs (HNV4).
Soil and water protection:
 crop rotation (SW1);
 soil erosion control (SW2).
Landscape features:
 maintenance of traditional orchards (LF3).
in Poland was simplified several times before it was launched in 2004, effectively as a pilot
scheme implemented only in priority zones with specific environmental problems, covering
about one third of the country. For the 2007-13 programme, available throughout Poland,
the schemes were revised, reduced in number from eight to seven and significant changes
were made to many of the management requirements. Some of these were the result of
introducing GAEC cross-compliance standards which meant that management actions that
had previously been paid for in the 2004-06 agri-environment schemes were now in the
reference level (for example, some crop rotation requirements). Other changes for the new
programming period were aimed at increasing the level of participation and simplifying the
requirements, as illustrated by the changes to the schemes for extensive grassland
management shown in Table 5.4.
Of the EU-15 case studies, France has experience of three programming periods to draw
upon, and has made significant changes to its entry-level schemes with each new
programme, as illustrated in Chapter 5. The UK also has lengthy experience of zonal and
higher-level agri-environment schemes, which had included entry-level actions, but the first
separate entry-level schemes available nationally were introduced in 2005. In England the
entry-level scheme was piloted in 2003 and the results of this were modelled at a national
scale before the scheme design was finalised and launched in 2005. The new programming
period provided an opportunity to revise and adjust the entry-level schemes and most of
the subsequent modifications have been informed by the findings of an evaluation of the
first two years’ operation (2005-2007). Scotland took a different route, and in 2005
launched a broad rural development scheme, offering entry-level agri-environment
payments alongside other EAFRD measures in a single contract. However there was concern
that the aims of the scheme were poorly understood by farmers, and that it did not lead to
pro-active agri-environmental management. Following an independent review a new two-
71
tier scheme was designed for the 2007-13 RDP, still covering measures from all three EAFRD
axes, but with agri-environment options at both entry and higher level.
Finland has made relatively few changes to the overall structure of its agri-environment
schemes and most of the schemes in the current RDP reflect the basic form of the first
programme, designed when Finland acceded to the EU in 1995, although the detailed
requirements have been refined, as illustrated in Box 6.1. For the 2007-13 RDP some
payment rates were changed, a new scheme to take arable land out of production was
added to the list of compulsory management in the basic scheme, and the package for
vegetation cover became optional rather than compulsory. Piloting is still rare in Finland,
but recently some potential measures for water protection and soil structure have been
tested within the TEHO and TEHO+ projects (set up at the instigation of a farming
stakeholder group - see Box 7.1), and research is also underway on the efficiency of
competitive market-based agri-environment payments, where farmers place bids to enter
the scheme.
The experience from the case studies shows that effective pilots before the formal
implementation of agri-environment schemes can reduce the need for scheme
modifications later (which often require Commission approval and therefore take time to
implement), can help to avoid delays in implementation and achievement of uptake, and
can be used as a ‘test run’ of administrative processes not just the management actions.
They also provide a valuable opportunity to assess farmers’ reactions and to incorporate
their practical suggestions.
6.1.1 Evidence base
A solid body of evidence, covering both agronomic and environmental factors and the
interaction between them, is an essential basis for designing effective agri-environment
management actions and schemes. In addition to their previous agri-environment
experience, the managing authorities in the case study countries have used several other
sources of evidence to inform the design of entry-level schemes.
In the Czech Republic, for example, data used in designing entry-level grassland schemes
came mainly from agricultural statistics (for example on input use, intensity of animal
production), farm economic data (especially profitability of cattle grazing and stocking rates)
and the Research Institute of Plant Production, who provided expertise on nutrient
management and grassland response. In Finland research is an important part of the policy
making process and much of it is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture. Here the need to
improve the environmental effectiveness of entry-level requirements for fertiliser use has
led to new research and monitoring, which was used in the process of scheme revision (see
Box 6.1).
Box 6.1: Influence of research on the entry-level scheme for fertiliser reduction in Finland
The environmental priority of the Finnish scheme is water protection from agricultural run-off. The
appropriate levels of fertiliser inputs for the entry-level scheme have been the most hotly debated and
politically difficult to negotiate of all the management requirements. In the first programming period, the
limits were related to economic efficiency, not environmental outcomes. Since then, pressure to improve
the environmental performance of the RDP has led to the fertiliser limits being revisited for every
programming period and the impacts of different fertiliser levels have been under intensive scrutiny through
72
research, experiments and monitoring.
The challenging process of shifting the focus of the Finnish entry-level schemes from ‘farmer support’ to
environment-enhancing measures is not yet complete and there is still a serious lack of consensus between
the researchers and environmental authorities on the one hand, and the agricultural administration and
farmer unions on the other, about the maximum permitted fertiliser limits. At the last round of the
negotiations, the key researcher on agricultural nutrient run-off left an official note of dissent about the
issue of phosphates in manure (set at 80 per cent of the agronomic optimum), while the farming press
claimed that this level would force many dairy farms out of agri-environmental agreements. New evidence
that crop yields would not be affected significantly by the lowered limits, as farmers had feared, led to a
revision of the ‘income-forgone’ calculation and the payment rate for the entry-level component for reduced
fertilisation of arable crops was reduced accordingly from €40.74/ha to €12.50/ha for the 2007-13 RDP.
It is clear that over three programming periods this scheme has been much improved by the active
involvement of researchers in the political process, and the availability of new evidence. In the second RDP
(2000-2006) fertiliser limits were set only for the major crop types, but in the current period these are
precisely differentiated by crop use, attained yields and major soil types and the latter are further
subdivided by soil fertility class for phosphates. Despite these considerable improvements, the scientific
community regards the permitted limits for inputs in the agri-environment scheme as still above those
required to achieve a measurable improvement in water quality.
In the UK there is a strong focus on both evidence gathering and consultation, although
more government resources appear to be allocated to agri-environment research in England
than in Scotland (possibly reflecting demographic, budgetary and political differences). The
extensive evidence gathering and research which underpinned the development of the first
entry-level scheme is described in Annex 8. It is interesting to note that the relative
abundance of evidence for biodiversity management techniques on arable land seems to
reflect the importance attributed to the UK ‘farmland bird index’, part of a suite of
sustainable development indicators adopted in 1999 and subsequently used as a CMEF
indicator.
In Bulgaria the information used in the design of agri-environment schemes was drawn from
the state institutions involved in setting up the schemes (ministries, institutes and research
bodies) but also, importantly, from the experience of the environmental NGOs. For
example, there was no database or experience of organic farming or endangered breeds in
Bulgaria outside the environmental NGOs, who provided operational and project data about
their farms and related production costs, subsequently used to calculate agri-environment
payments. NGOs are currently running a pilot programme of EAFRD measures for HNV
farmland in Bulgaria, which could inform the development of measures for the 2014-20
programming period (described in Annex 7).
Limited use of evidence gathered in the CMEF cycle
There are several examples of separate, independent national agri-environment evaluations
undertaken (and consequent RDP revisions prepared) in the period between 2007 and 2010,
before the Mid Term Evaluations (MTEs) were completed. In terms of providing evidence
useful for reviewing and adjusting agri-environment schemes during the period of a RDP the
formal cycle of Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) monitoring and
evaluation reports seem to have been of limited use, apart from the data collected on the
uptake of entry-level options, because evaluation of new schemes was needed much sooner
than the MTE. For those EU-10 Member States with limited previous experience (Poland and
73
the Czech Republic) the formal cycle was even less useful because the first programming
period was shorter than usual (only three years) and no mid-term review was carried out to
inform the design of the 2007-13 RDP.
6.2 Revising schemes and management actions during the 2007-13 RDP
In EU-12 Member States with limited experience of national agri-environment
implementation, such as Bulgaria, there was almost certainly going to be a need to adjust
the 2007-13 schemes during the course of the RDP, as problems arose. This is confirmed by
the case studies. It is worth noting, however, that some of the more experienced EU-15
Member States have also made frequent adjustments during the course of the 2007-13
RDPs. ,In the UK, for example, evidence has been collected and used to modify prescriptions
throughout the life of the entry-level schemes (see Annex 9) and in France the dynamic
relationship between changes in the reference level and entry-level prescriptions has meant
that changes have had to be made fairly frequently (see Table 5.2).
An examination of the reasons for revisions reveals the almost constantly shifting policy
background against which entry-level schemes operate, and the considerable effort in some
(but not all) RDPs to improve the environmental ‘value for money’ of entry-level schemes.
No consistent pattern has been observed of revisions to schemes being implemented at the
start of a new RDP rather than during its course, and the frequency, type and purpose of
revisions also varies considerably between RDPs. Drivers of change include implementation
and uptake problems, overlap with regional or local standards and efforts to improve the
environmental effectiveness and geographical targeting. In some cases considerable efforts
are made to obtain and use evidence to design and improve the effectiveness of entry-level
management, although this is not always translated into an effective scheme. Some of the
main factors driving revisions (or lack of them) highlighted in the case studies are set out
below.
6.2.1 Overlap with GAEC standards and/or national legislation and accepted standards
In England (UK) four options for management plans (soil, manure, nutrient and crop
protection) were withdrawn at the start of the 2007-13 RDP because the Commission
considered that these were too close to the reference level, with very little added value for
the public expenditure65. The withdrawal of these management plans was a cause of
concern among arable farmers joining the scheme, because they had to find alternative
options suited to their farms, as well as for the authorities who had to develop other
resource protection options (see Box 6.2). In Bulgaria some requirements were removed
because of duplication with national legislation (see Annex 7). In Italy, although there was
no duplication with GAEC, integrated crop management is becoming more and more an
industry standard for efficient farms, particularly those aiming to increase productivity by
rational use of technical inputs and machinery. For this reason a few regions decided to
withdraw this support from their RDPs and, in consequence, have suffered a lower uptake
rate of agri-environment schemes as a whole.
65
It was argued by the Commission that manure and nutrient management plans duplicated a forthcoming
legislative requirement under the revised Nitrates Action Programme; that there was insufficient distinction
between the requirements of the agri-environment Soil Management Plan and those of the GAEC Soil
Protection Review; and that the Crop Protection Plan covered what should be good farming practice.
74
Box 6.2: Two examples of revisions to entry level agri-environment schemes involving
desk-based management requirements
In England, a study of the potential impacts of the entry-level scheme on resource protection (Boatman et al,
2007b) found that nutrient management plans appeared likely to have the greatest impact on nitrogen losses,
because these cover the whole farm area and can potentially tackle problems at source. The greatest impact
on phosphate losses were thought to be soil management plans and buffer strips on arable land. However, the
modelling that underpinned these judgements had assumed that the management identified in the plans was
actually implemented, whereas the agri-environment payment was made simply for producing the plans.
Management plans were withdrawn from the scheme (as a condition of approval by the Commission), but it
was considered that most of the other entry-level options would have limited impacts on water quality. Two
revisions were made to address this problem. Firstly, additional management options were offered, including:
 in-field grass areas to prevent erosion and run-off;
 12m buffer strips for watercourses on cultivated land (wider strips are thought to have greater
impact);
 enhanced management of maize crops to reduce soil erosion and run-off;
 maintenance of watercourse fencing; and
 use of winter cover crops (to reduce nitrate leaching and reduce runoff at a field scale).
Secondly, targeted advice was made available through the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery
Initiative to help farmers choose and locate the most effective options (see Box 7.1 for details).
In Finland a new, controversial desk-based requirement for ‘biodiversity mapping’ has been added to the basic
scheme, with farmers required to identify biodiversity features on a special form and also on a map of the
farm, retain these documents and present them to the controlling authorities on request. Opinion was already
divided at the planning stage, with some considering it a useful way of raising awareness about features
important for biodiversity, and others worried that without any official recognition or requirement for
practical management, it would lead to farmers losing interest in biodiversity as a scheme objective. During
negotiations an attempt to require farmers to submit the forms, and to add some management obligations,
had failed and the scheme was a compromise, unsupported by analysis of the likely benefits and possible sideeffects. There was no pilot, but preliminary monitoring results (from MYTVAS-3) indicate that concerns about
this new requirement are justified. Interviews with the farmers revealed that most felt that this is just one
more piece of paperwork of no value, and some farmers were concerned that identifying biodiversity elements
on the farm may lead to protective measures similar to Natura 2000. One interviewee for this study simply
asked, ‘what good will come if this tree is put on paper?’ (pers. comm, ProAgria and Project), and In the most
recent round of revisions to the agri-environment programme this scheme was described as “the worst failure
so far”.
Source: UK and Finland case studies
6.2.2 Implementation problems
One of the most common revisions is to payment rates. For example, changes were made in
Lombardia (Italy) in 2010 to take account of additional costs, such as transaction costs not
included in the original estimation of income loss, and updated agricultural prices. At the
same time the number of crops eligible for payment was widened.
In Bulgaria revisions were needed shortly after the introduction of the 2007-13 RDP in 2008,
which was in effect the implementation of the first national agri-environment scheme.
These revisions were in response to implementation difficulties faced by the Paying Agency,
proposals from the National Agricultural Advisory Service (NAAS) (including opinions of
farmers), proposals by environmental NGOs and research institutes working with farmers,
and complaints by the farmers themselves. The revisions included:
75



introduction or removal of management requirements, usually to improve
verifiability and control, as proposed by the technical inspectorate;
changes to management requirements to improve environmental delivery or
make it easier for farmers to understand, usually based on proposals by
environmental NGOs, NAAS or farmers’ associations; and
changes to baseline requirements in response to changes in national or EU
legislation.
6.2.3 Response to the abolition of set-aside and loss of associated environmental
benefits
In two of the case studies there were significant revisions to entry-level schemes in
response to the abolition of set-aside in 2009 (as part of the CAP Health Check) and concern
about the potential loss of environmental benefits. In Finland a new compulsory element
was added to the basic agri-environment scheme, requiring farmers to take at least 5 per
cent of their arable land out of production, as described in Box 5.5. In England the following
changes were made to entry-level arable options between 2008 and 2010, all for the benefit
of farmland birds, intended either to increase the food (seed) supply for birds during winter,
or to improve spring/summer nesting habitats:
 wildlife seed mixtures: the area required per farm was increased, and management
requirements changed (2008);
 unharvested conservation headlands: management improved (this option replaced
unfertilised conservation headlands in 2008);
 enhanced over-wintered stubbles: to follow a spring crop, with delayed drilling dates
to provide increased food for birds over the winter (2010);
 skylark plots: the area of each plot was increased (2008);
 fallow plots: a new option (based on research) for larger plots of up to 2 ha, with
improved management in spring preceding the fallow, for species other than
skylarks such as lapwing and yellow wagtail (2010).
6.2.4 Improving environmental effectiveness
In some case study countries considerable efforts are being made to improve the
environmental effectiveness of entry-level schemes by detailed revisions to management
requirements and/or more accurate targeting of appropriate management options. In the
Czech Republic the scheme for cover crops has been improved by changing the species mix
and defining upper and lower limits for the percentage of arable land to be cropped. These
changes helped farmers to avoid mistakes in crop rotation and improved the managing
authority’s financial management. Many detailed changes have also been made to entrylevel management requirements in England, as described above and in Annex 8. The Czech
Republic is at the forefront of geographical targeting of entry-level schemes, as illustrated in
Box 6.3, and in Finland fertiliser limits are now differentiated by crop and soil type, as
described in Box 6.1.
Opportunities remain for improved targeting of entry-level agri-environment schemes. In
some case studies an emphasis on reaching output targets for total area or budget
expenditure seems to have led to prioritising uptake above environmental impacts, despite
the introduction of impact indicators within the CMEF. For example, in Lazio there was a 40
per cent increase in agri-environment uptake between 2009 and 2010, mainly due to new
76
entrants to the schemes for integrated and organic farming. However, the regional
administration has not resolved problems with uptake of schemes for soil management and
organic content where uptake is low because the payment rates do not reflect net costs at
farm level. A similar situation exists in Campania, with a 52 per cent increase in uptake due
to integrated and organic farming options, but no plans to improve uptake of the schemes
for soil protection. Poland places a strong emphasis on area uptake as a measure of agrienvironment success and this has been achieved by revisions that simplify successive
schemes, which have helped to achieve overall uptake targets but offer fewer opportunities
to differentiate management options to suit differing regional conditions. In a move in quite
the opposite direction, the MTE of the entry-level scheme in England recommended
removing the uptake area target for the whole scheme (set at 70 per cent of farmland in
England participating by 2011) and continuing to develop entry-level targeting (including
scheme design and spatial targeting). This rather surprising recommendation was justified
because the focus on achieving uptake was perceived to reduce the scope for targeting
specific management options, and because it was necessary to improve environmental
effectiveness more generally66.
Box 6.3: Progressive targeting of schemes to prevent soil erosion on the Czech Republic
The scheme to establish grassland on sites not suitable for arable farming operated as a national scheme from
mid 1990s until 2004 when it became part of the entry-level agri-environment programme. It was targeted at
areas of greatest need (arable land in the LFA and arable fields elsewhere with soils vulnerable to erosion, for
example on slopes, shallow soils and soils near water bodies). In practice this was not very efficient as fields
are rather large in the Czech Republic and many have both steep slopes and flat land. The first step in targeting
was to calculate the average slope per field, but this was not an accurate indicator of vulnerability. The next
step has been to identify sensitive soils within fields, using detailed maps of soil characteristics developed by
the Research Institute of Soil and Water Protection. Farmers can download from the website a detailed map of
their fields (based on LPIS) and identify which areas of the field are eligible for the arable conversion scheme
(an example of this map is in Table 7.1). This GIS-based approach is regarded as both environmentally and
financially efficient, has also been adopted for higher level schemes, and may be extended to other entry-level
schemes (for example cover crops) in the next programming period.
6.3 Stakeholder involvement in scheme design and revision
In most of the case study countries, the design and revision of entry-level agri-environment
schemes involved one or more working groups representing a broad range of interests. The
Bulgarian experience illustrates the process for the SAPARD programme. The Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry established three separate working groups, one for organic
farming, another for endangered breeds of local farm animals, and the third for the
management of semi-natural habitats and support for anti-erosion practices. The three
groups included representatives of different directorates and agencies of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Water, research institutes, the executive
Environmental Agency and several agricultural and environmental NGOs. The working
groups selected the management actions and justified the proposed pilot scheme, and a
similar process was used for the 2007-2013 RDP, with all of the activities discussed and
agreed in working groups set up by an Order of the Minister of Agriculture. External
expertise was used mainly for summarising requirements and calculating payment rates.
66
Recommendations 214-1 and 214-2 of Defra Rural Development Programme for England 2007 – 2013 Mid
Term Evaluation Volume One
77
Similar groups are used in Finland and the Czech Republic and also in the UK, where formal
consultation with a wide range of stakeholders is a familiar process in the development of
government policy and was used extensively in the design of the first entry-level scheme
(see Annex 9). The processes of involving stakeholders in the design of new entry-level
schemes in Finland and Italy are illustrated in Boxes 6.4 and 6.5. Farmers’ representatives
and environmental NGOs continue to have a significant role in the development of several
agri-environment programmes, not just in presenting stakeholder views but, in the case of
the environmental NGOs, also providing evidence. For example, in Bulgaria a GEF/UNDP
funded pilot in three areas of the country is testing EAFRD measures not yet used in the
RDP, and in England work conducted by the RSPB and the BTO on farmland birds has been
used to inform the design of management options.
Wider benefits can come from the close collaboration required in working groups
developing schemes, notably in relation to the subsequent delivery of the schemes.
Participant organisations often provide support and advisory services for farmers, where
detailed knowledge of scheme development is likely to be useful. In Finland the level of cooperation achieved between agricultural and environmental interests in the agrienvironment process contrasts with the conflicts common in forestry, to the extent that
farmers (who are all also forest owners) are reported to have been surprised to find that
environmental NGOs were ‘on their side’67. In some cases the collaboration has led to joint
projects between environmental and agricultural authorities and NGOs. The case studies
show that, in at least some RDPs, a wide range of stakeholders are involved in scheme
design, with on-going benefits of ‘social learning’ which extend beyond the immediate
process. In the example of rice farmers in Italy, efforts to involve the potential beneficiaries
as equal partners in the process of design seem to have been particularly rewarding, with
high uptake levels of this new biodiversity scheme (Box 6.5).
67 Finland case study
78
Box 6.4: Experience of the collaborative scheme design process in Finland
A new scheme for ‘biodiversity set-aside’ was introduced during the current programming period in response
to concerns at the national level about the loss of set-aside and the EU level about the need to strengthen the
biodiversity focus of the RDP. The scheme details can be found in Box 5.5.
The MoA had already set up a working group to consider a national fallowing option, and when it was decided
to introduce the new scheme a special sub-group was formed of seven members representing the
administration, farmer unions, research interests and environmental NGOs. Additionally, the research and
environmental NGO group members met separately with other researchers to consider how to design the
scheme for maximum benefit to biodiversity. After three months the scheme was presented to the large
working group for revision, then to the national steering group for approval and finally, with amendments, it
was submitted to the Commission. Positive aspects of this particular process were seen to be:
 shared objectives based on the environmental concerns of all participants, especially in the sub-group
devoted to this specific task;
 the intensive work of the sub-group was a learning process for all interests - the researchers had more
insight into the modifications that are possible nationally and those that require input from the
Commission; the administrators had a clearer understanding of the optimal management for biodiversity;
 informal discussions among researchers and environmental NGOs helped to build up mutual
understanding and sufficient influence to achieve what was regarded as a reasonably good scheme;
 some of the researchers had been involved in agri-environment processes for a number of years and
hence understood both the opportunities to influence national regulations and the limitations of the EU
rules;
 research on the efficiency and potential improvement of the scheme was initiated and funded by the MoA
within the first year of delivery.
More general observations on the scheme design process in Finland suggest that it relies on trust and shared
objectives which may not always have been in place, but over the years the situation seems to have improved.
One perceived problem is that researchers are regarded as an interest group, and their opinion on the
minimum requirements to achieve the environmental targets is easily overruled by the majority. As a result,
the agreed scheme is always a compromise among many interests and professional groups, which risks
scheme design being weakened to the point of nil effect, yet the scheme may still be put into practice (Herzon
et al, 2010).
79
Box 6.5: The benefits of involving farmers in the design process in Lombardia (Italy)
The production of rice involves a large area in Lombardia (about 100,000 ha in the provinces of Pavia, Milano,
Lodi and Mantova). Despite intensive cropping, the rice fields can be considered as HNV farmland, because
Lombardia has one of the most abundant populations of herons in Europe directly associated with rice fields
and stream networks. Scientific studies conducted by University of Pavia demonstrated that during the dry
period of rice cultivation there is a decrease in aquatic microfauna, with negative effects on the presence of
farmland birds (Longoni, 2010; Longoni et al, 2011). The study also showed that changes in farming practices
can improve the contribution of rice fields to biodiversity.
In 2009 the Lombardia regional authority decided to design a new agri-environment scheme specifically for
rice fields (Carasi and Novello, 2011). Involvement of rice growers was an essential part of the design process,
and when the first draft of the management requirements were ready, several meetings with farmers were
organised in the most important rice-growing areas. An important role was played by the producer
organisation (Ente Risi) which presented the region’s new proposal to farmers at these advisory meetings.
Nine meetings were held to discuss all the technical aspects of the proposal, with experts from University of
Pavia present.
In this way the new agri-environment scheme was designed by a process where the farmers were main actors
alongside experts and regional officers. The management requirements of the scheme include creating a water
course which is kept fully wet for the whole year; a ditch to provide an undisturbed habitat for bird nesting;
and leaving rice straw until the end of February (as a valuable resource for migrant birds). The payment is
€125-155 /ha and a minimum 10 per cent of the total area of rice fields must be entered.
The participatory approach seems to have contributed to a high uptake of 11,300 ha at regional level in the
first year (2011), and in the province of Mantova 100 per cent of the rice farmers entered this new scheme.
80
7
FARMER SUPPORT NETWORKS AND FARMERS’ ATTITUDES
This chapter explores the role, design and effect of the support networks and services
available to the ‘target population’ of farmers for entry-level agri-environment schemes and
considers the effect of participation in entry-level agri-environment schemes on farmers’
attitudes to the environment.
Support networks in the context of this study are taken to mean the formal and informal
sources and processes providing information, technical advice and assistance to farmers
who are eligible for, in the process of applying for or are already participating in agrienvironment programmes.
Support networks may be formal or informal, provided by government or by other
organisations, free to farmers or paid for by farmers, and may include any of the following:


For farmers thinking about applying for entry-level schemes: information, helplines,
explanation of requirements and how these fit with the farming system, explanation
of the eligibility rules and application process, and practical assistance with obtaining
information and filling in forms;
For farmers who have already signed up to entry-level schemes: advice and answers
to questions about the land management required, about administration of the
schemes, help with compliance problems (eg unforeseen problems caused by
weather) and training in environmental land management.
7.1 The context and role of support networks in agri-environment programmes
Networks of support services for farmers were established long before agri-environment
schemes existed and it is important to have an understanding of the impact of this wider
context on the provision of agri-environment specific support.
The extent, purpose, influence and structure of existing agricultural support services is far
from uniform across the EU, but in most situations is provided by a wide range of actors
including governments, agricultural research institutes, commercial providers of farm goods
or services, marketing institutions and farmers’ organisations. These providers have all
sought to provide information and often to influence farmers’ behaviour or decisionmaking, but have had very different objectives in doing so, which may differ over time and
according to the perceived needs of the target farmers. Providers and their objectives might
include, for example, agricultural authorities seeking to promote best practice agronomic
and animal husbandry techniques, compliance with regulations or codes of practice, or to
improve quality and methods of production. Commercial organisations may sell
personalised business and technical advice to farmers or use advisory support as a
marketing tool (for example in relation to agro-chemicals). Advisers are frequently
mentioned as significant intermediaries between farmers and government policy (Deffuant
2001; Juntti and Potter, 2002; Fish et al, 2003; ADAS, 2004; Morris, 2006; Wales Audit
Office, 2007). Farmers’ organisations also provide a range of support services in the
interests of their members and many farmers use informal social support networks too.
81
The voluntary nature of agri-environment programmes and the impact of agri-environment
management on both day-to-day land management and on the farm business mean that
agri-environment support overlaps and interacts with many of these other support services,
but is unlikely to be met by any one of them alone.
The only common support service covering environmental land management across the EU27 is the Farm Advisory Service (FAS) introduced into the CAP as part of the 2003 CAP
reform. Member States must have a FAS that provides farmers with advice on cross
compliance, and can use the service to deliver other types of advice too. An evaluation of
the FAS in all Member States, carried out for the European Commission, found that six
Member States were using FAS to provide advice on agri-environment management, for
example on Natura 2000 in the Czech Republic, water protection schemes in Estonia, agrienvironment plans in Hungary and agri-environment scheme requirements in Lithuania
(ADE, 2009).
7.2 Provision of farmer support networks
In contrast to the FAS, there is no common structure for the provision of agri-environment
support across the EU. The available literature tends to focus on experience in individual
Member States and does not necessarily distinguish between provision for entry-level and
higher-level agri-environment schemes. Support for the latter is likely to be rather different
in nature and needed for a much smaller group of farmers than those in entry-level
schemes. A common finding of several reviews across the EU is that advisory systems for
agri-environment measures are most effective when supported from both public and
private sectors. A recent review of the Environmental Stewardship (ES) scheme in England
(Smallshire et al, 2011) notes that the English policy and advisory infrastructure has a
‘constructive working partnership’ between the government and the voluntary sector that is
effectively able to support agri-environment beneficiaries (also see Evans et al, 2002). In
contrast, the situation regarding the provision of agri-environment advice in Hungary is not
seen in a positive light. A recent review of the implementation of the Hungarian agrienvironment schemes (both entry-level and higher-level) criticises the use of a single
government body to organise all training and advisory support. Furthermore, this review
shows that, in the opinion of the stakeholders interviewed ‘the monitoring, training and
advisory services’ were felt to be the second worst feature (after the IT system) of the
recently implemented agri-environment programme (High and Nemes, 2011).
Farmer groups can provide mutual support when undertaking new initiatives, including
environmental projects, and the benefits of farmer networks and liaison have long been
recognised as an important means of helping to improve the acceptance of the need for and
encouraging the implementation of environmental management (Garforth, 2003; Dwyer et
al, 2007; Posthumus and Morris, 2010). In the Netherlands environmental cooperatives
support groups of applicants for agri-environment schemes; the benefits for farmers include
reduced transaction costs and a greater awareness of agri-environment issues, and for
government these cooperatives provide a single point of contact for dissemination of
information and improve the quality of applications (Franks and McGloin, 2006).
Farmers’ attitudes and their performance in agri-environment implementation may respond
to feedback on the positive outcomes of agri-environment management, and an element of
82
self-assessment. Evaluations of agri-environment schemes in the UK and Germany have
shown that farmers valued feedback and recognition of their achievements (Oppermann,
2003; ADAS, 2004; Wales Audit Office, 2007; Ingram et al, 2009). This is particularly
important when benefits are not necessarily observable to the non-expert (Dwyer et al,
2007). In Baden-Württemberg (Germany) there has been some success in developing a selfevaluation system of ecological performance where farmers are involved in assessing the
biodiversity impacts on their own farms (Oppermann, 2003).
In the case study Member States some of the entry-level agri-environment management
actions specify farm-level input from specialist advisers, for example in preparing cropping
and nutrient management pans or assessing soil erosion risks. Although this is a concept
more usually associated with higher level schemes it seems to be quite important in some
entry-level schemes targeted at a wide range of farmers (Finland) or vulnerable areas (NVZs
in Italy). Others commented that improvements were needed to extension services to
improve both farmer compliance and understanding68. In seeking widespread uptake of
entry-level type management there may, to a certain extent, be a trade-off between public
expenditure on payments to farmers and public expenditure on extension and advisory
services closely associated with the delivery and effectiveness of the agri-environment
schemes.
The range of different support services provided in five of the case study Member States is
considered below, followed by examples of good practice and a summary of the
characteristics of effective support networks.
7.2.1 Bulgaria
The implementation of CAP support in general and agri-environment payments in particular
is still a rather new experience for Bulgaria and the role of advisory services and other
support networks is a very important and sometimes critical part of the implementation of
the agri-environment programme, which consists entirely of entry-level schemes.
The support provided to farmers applying for and/or implementing entry-level agrienvironmental actions in Bulgaria can be divided into five major groups:
 Information campaigns, guidelines, leaflets, brochures and other publicity materials,
prepared and implemented both by government institutions and NGOs with the
support of the RDP technical assistance measure and/or other donors;
 Specific application information provided by the regional offices of the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Paying Agency;
 Support offered by the National Agricultural Advisory Service;
 Support offered free of charge by different environmental NGOs; and
 Support by private consultants and/or organisations charging for their services.
Theoretically, the flow of information and support for farmers is assured from all possible
sources, with national and local agricultural administrations as well as national and regional
68 Italy case study.
83
advisory services all providing information and advice about the available support. In
practice, however, experience during the current implementation period has been mixed.
The effectiveness of Ministry of Agriculture information campaigns, guidelines, leaflets,
brochures and other publicity materials was hampered by poor timing of events, shortage of
materials (only 10,000 copies of the agri-environment guidelines were published in 2009)
and problems in updating information and documentation as rules changed. In contrast, the
seminars organised by NGOs, farmers’ organisations or municipalities were usually more
tailored to the specific needs of the farmers in a certain region, focussing on their priorities.
The most accessible information source for most farmers is the free information on all
support schemes or policies which the municipal and regional offices of the Ministry and the
Paying Agency are expected to offer. However, problems resulted from the lack of coordination of agri-environment information, and led to confusion amongst farmers who
received different responses to their questions from different offices.
Since the mid 1990s Bulgaria has had a well structured public extension service, the National
Agricultural Advisory Service (NAAS), which has 28 regional offices providing a broad range
of advisory services in the agricultural sector, although in recent years the staff numbers
have been reduced. Since 2006 NAAS staff have been trained continuously on agrienvironmental issues and, until recently, provided a free service to farmers, preparing the
full set of applications and required attachments for agri-environment activities as well as
offering advice on implementation of GAEC standards, a pre-requisite for participation in
agri-environment schemes. This agri-environment advisory service was provided by NAAS
free of charge for farmers until September 2010, using EU co-financing69. The mid-term
evaluation of Bulgarian RDP 2007-2013 showed that between 68 per cent and 78 per cent of
the agri-environment beneficiaries were supported by NAAS and that almost 71 per cent of
the respondents to a farmer survey considered the support of NAAS as useful or very useful.
The MTE recommended that the free-of-charge agri-environment support services should
be extended for a further period after September 2010, but this recommendation was not
taken up by the Ministry.
In Bulgaria there is a large number of environmental NGOs whose priorities are focussed on
nature protection and conservation, and whose projects are supported by EU funding or
other donor organisations. Some of these NGOs have branches/offices in key biodiversity
areas in the country and where they are involved in the promotion of agri-environment
management they usually provide the main support for farmers in that area. This covers not
just the application and implementation process, they also act on behalf of the farmers in
exchanges with the MoA or the paying agency. One of the best examples is the support
offered by the mobile advisory teams of an NGO project for protection of grasslands in two
69
As new Member States Bulgaria and Romania implemented an EU co-financed measure for the provision of
farm advisory and extension services to agricultural producers intending to apply for EAFRD support under
measures 141 (Supporting Semi-Subsistence Farms Undergoing Restructuring); 112 (Setting up Young
Farmers); 142 Setting up Producer Groups; and to farmers intending to apply under Measure 214 Agrienvironmental payments. (Measure 143 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 as amended by Regulation (EC) No
434/2007
84
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Natura 2000 sites - Ponor Mountain and Besseparski Hills
(see the Box 7.1 in section 7.3 below).
Farmers’ associations are not significant providers of agri-environment support in Bulgaria.
Support from private consultants and organisations is also very limited, mostly due to the
fact that there is no public payment to subsidise the use of their services. Unlike public
institutions such as NAAS (until recently) or NGOs who can finance these activities under
projects, private consultants rely on a direct payment from farmers.
There is an agri-environment scheme requirement in Bulgaria for farmers to participate in
training during the first two years of their agri-environment contract, but this has not been
implemented and the deadline was prolonged several times, because the provision of free
training to farmers, funded through the vocational training measure under Axis 1 of the
EAFRD, was not implemented until 2010.
The experience highlighted within the Bulgarian case study suggests a number of
conclusions in relation to the provision of advice and training to farmers. These are as
follows:
 Farmers rely upon and feel most comfortable with information and support
provided by the governmental institutions that are geographically closest to
them;
 Where the support role of local and regional offices of the Ministry and paying
agency was under-resourced, agri-environment implementation suffered
seriously;
 At national level, the most effective agri-environment advisory support has been
provided by the NAAS, but it took them at least two years to gain sufficient
expertise and experience to be fully effective;
 Withdrawal of the free-of-charge NAAS support to farmers is a missed
opportunity to increase agri-environment uptake and achieve environmental
objectives nationally (and also a significant underuse of agri-environment
capacity that has been built up over time within a governmental institution);
 the role of environmental NGOs is quite important locally, especially in areas of
biodiversity conservation importance, providing both administrative information
and support for farmers addressing specific practical issues on their farms; and
 agri-environment uptake is much higher and farmers feel most satisfied in
regions where there is a good cooperation and interaction between the different
governmental institutions and NAAS advisors.
7.2.2 Czech Republic
Farm structures are polarised in the Czech Republic, with more than 70 per cent of the land
held by less than four per cent of the farms as large units ranging in size from 500 ha to
more than 2,000 ha. Until the 1990s these farms were industrial units with universityeducated managers, usually a minimum of three or four per farm, specialising in plant
production, animal production, machinery and economics. Knowledge transfer in the sector
was based around research by specialist institutes published in scientific articles and studies,
which were disseminated directly to farms. Since this state network vanished in the 1990s
there has been something of a gap in the dissemination of agricultural knowledge generally.
85
Currently knowledge transfer relies mainly on the centralised state websites of the Ministry
of Agriculture, the Paying Agency and the Institute of Agriculture Economics and
Information (UZEI). The latter organisation not only runs specialised websites for farmers,
but also provides certification for private advisers. Information provision is not restricted to
particular farmers or geographical areas and there is no separate advisory service or other
form of information provision specifically for entry-level schemes. Most of the support
network is common to all agri-environment schemes, and only a few additional
organisations (usually NGOs) deal with the more targeted schemes.
One of the most important tools for farmers applying for entry-level schemes (and agrienvironment management in general) is the web-based Land Parcel Identification System
(iLPIS) providing a wide range of spatially differentiated information (see Box 7.1 below).
In terms of the process of applying for entry into agri-environment schemes, farmers usually
source initial information from websites at the regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture
(where booklets are available) and at seminars. At the Institute of Agricultural Economics
and Information there is helpdesk offering a state-funded individual question and answer
service which is free of charge. Application forms are filled in either without help (large
farms usually have their own trained specialist) or farmers can obtain help at the regional
office of the Ministry of Agriculture (free) or from a private advisor (charged). When the
agri-environment contract is up and running, on-going support is available from the regional
office of Ministry of Agriculture, or on some matters directly from the central Ministry of
Agriculture (both free). Although some farmers may pay for advice it is understood that
private advisers are not used by many farmers.
In assessing the effect of support networks in the Czech Republic, it should be noted that
there are substantial differences between large corporate farms with well-educated
managers trained to deal with government policies and small family farms with limited
human capital (a lack of capacity or training or both). For the first group and the more
advanced family farms, the provision of website information may be sufficient to enable
them to apply for the entry-level scheme and to run the contract successfully. Smaller farms
with limited human capital, however, are more likely to have difficulty in dealing with
websites or in understanding the information on rules and management prescriptions
provided at seminars or in booklets. In this case private advice could be helpful but is not
sufficiently used70 However, the application process for entry-level schemes is regarded as
relatively simple and support is provided, although the case study highlighted the fact that
the quality of assistance varies between regions and the capacity to provide advice in these
offices is limited. As a result some of the offices focus more than others on family farmers
(Prazan, Majerova, Kapler 2010). One study in the Czech Republic has shown that the lack of
closer links with advisors and the lack of trust between farmers and state administrators has
led to misunderstandings among farmers about the purpose of the agri-environment
programmes and thus of the entry-level schemes too (Prazan, Majerova, Kapler 2010),
although this does not appear to have reduced levels of uptake or compliance.
70 Czech Republic case study
86
7.2.3 Finland
In Finland entry-level agri-environment schemes have a high level of uptake and are
generally well catered for by support services. These are mainly state-funded and provided
centrally through the Agency for Rural Affairs and regionally by Centres for Economic
Development, Transport and the Environment. Farmers know about the opportunities for
entry-level agri-environment payments, the options available and management required.71
Farmer to farmer information flow is also likely to be good, since almost all farmers
participate in the schemes and have experiences to share. In contrast, information on the
higher-level agri-environment schemes, which until 2010 were administered by the regional
environmental authorities, has been more difficult for farmers to obtain, and the quality of
advice and regional uptake have both varied considerably. The recent merger of the
previously separate regional environmental and agricultural is expected to improve the
coherence of support for higher-level agri-environment schemes. Apart from regular
advisory events, they also run campaigns and projects on various agri-environment topics,
and these usually include free advice.
The highest available quality of professional support is considered to be offered by the
commercial, albeit heavily subsidised, advisory service ProAgria. However, this company
only provides advice to those farmers who ask for it and are willing to pay, which greatly
restricts the number of farmers using this service. The advice is targeted largely at the
production interests of farmers and at key environmental issues for which there is a
demand from farmers, such as reducing nutrient run-off.
For the first programming period in 1995-99 the scheme included a compulsory training day
(on agri-environmental objectives, structure, and requirements). The farmers disliked the
compulsory element, there were some logistic difficulties and the training requirement was
dropped from subsequent programmes. Some observers argue that it should be reinstated
because it was extremely beneficial in teaching farmers something about environmental
issues, but if this were to happen in future the training would have to be of more practical
relevance to the farmers.72
7.2.4 Poland
In Poland there is an effective network of farmer support but the biggest problem has been
ensuring the effective flow of information from the managing authority through this
network to individual farmers. Information about the agri-environment programme in
general and more detailed information on implementation is available to interested farmers
from a wide range of sources, in different forms and at several administrative levels (Table
7.1). Farmers might receive information from several different sources but practical
assistance with implementation is provided mainly by the paying agency 73 and by specially
trained agri-environment advisers in the extension service, who are the frontline contacts
for farmers. At the end of 2010 there were 1,819 agri-environment advisers preparing
71 Finland case study
72 Finalnd case study
73 Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture
87
64,750 individual agri-environment contracts (an average of 40 per adviser). During 2010 a
total of 20,000 new agri-environment contracts were registered. The most frequently
chosen schemes under these plans were for extensive meadows and pastures (14,800
plans), water and soil protection (14,400 plans) and sustainable agriculture (6,500 plans)74.
The biggest challenge faced by advisers in Poland was simply to obtain accurate and up-todate information about the agri-environment programme and the compliance requirements
at farm level. On-going changes in national regulations, application dates and scheme
requirements, together with re-allocation of funds created significant challenges for
advisers trying to provide an effective information and advisory service for farmers.
Table 7.1: Sources of information and advice for farmers about agri-environment schemes
in Poland
Information source
Ministry of Agriculture
Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture
Other agencies and institutes of Ministry of Agriculture
Regional and local authorities
Extension service
NGOs (environmental, farmers’ associations, etc.)
General media
Science and education
Commercial companies
Informal farmers networks, including internet
National
Poland
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Administrative level
Regional
Local
Province
Community
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7.2.5 United Kingdom
The RDPs in England and Scotland offer an interesting contrast in the provision of
government support services for applicants to entry-level agri-environment schemes. In
addition, in England a new agri-environment support network has been initiated by the
main farmers’ organisations under the auspices of the Campaign for the Farmed
Environment.
Support services for entry-level agri-environment applicants in England
Before the introduction in 2005 of England’s entry-level Environmental Stewardship (ELS),
scheme farmers had been accustomed, during the previous 18 years, to agri-environment
schemes which included both entry-level and higher-level actions and offered integrated onfarm support from specialist government advisers. However, initially ELS was a ‘hands-off’
scheme with no provision of on-farm one-to-one advice by the responsible managing
authority. This was a significant change for farmers, and the original handbook describes the
approach adopted:
“Will help be provided to understand the scheme and complete my application?
We hope that enough information is provided in this handbook to enable you to complete
your application. RDS, and other organisations, will also be holding Environmental
74 Information from National Centre for Extension Service [2011]
88
Stewardship (ES) meetings and other events to explain the scheme and to provide advice on
applying. In addition, you will be able to contact advisers at your RDS75 office who will be
able to help with general enquiries. If you wish to attend an ES meeting you should contact
your RDS office for the location of venues and availability of places. RDS contact details are
provided in appendix 6 of this handbook.”
An initial evaluation of the implementation of Environmental Stewardship obtained
information from agreement holders about their sources and use of advice (Boatman et al.,
2007). Only around 60 per cent of applicants completed applications themselves and a
similar proportion sought advice when completing their application. The main sources of
support were independent consultants and land agents, with FWAG (Farming and Wildlife
Advisory Group76) also used by a number of respondents. Around half of ELS applicants
attended meetings organised by Defra, and just under 30 per cent attended meetings held
by other organisations (mainly FWAG and the National Farmers’ Union). Telephone advice
was also frequently sought but the website was less popular as a source of information (only
19 per cent of applicants used it).
This evaluation highlighted the importance of advice to ELS applicants and recommended
that, if possible, the provision of advice should be extended and improved, particularly to
improve the environmental effectiveness of the scheme. A number of possible measures
were suggested, including more active targeting on a regional basis and promoting different
options in different regions through the provision of advice. Evidence from other studies
also highlighted the potential value of advice. For example, a study looking at training and
advice for agri-environmental management reported that a number of the farmers
interviewed found implementation of ELS options difficult and welcomed the opportunity to
receive advice and training (Lobley et al, 2010).
The findings of this initial evaluation informed a Review of Progress of ELS, completed in
2007. The need for greater availability of advice to assist applicants in making informed
choices was accepted by Natural England (the current delivery agency), which has
introduced free advice through the Land Management Advice Service (LMAS), a Natural
England in-house programme and from 2010, the ELS Training and Information Project
(ETIP) which offers free workshops, one-to-one farm visits, farm walks and other events run
either by government advisors or external contractors. Much of this training and
information is funded through Axis 1 (measure 111) of the RDPE and is aimed at improving
both farmers’ choice of management options and their implementation. During the year
April 2010 to March 2011 there were 18,680 new agri-environment contracts and nearly
75
RDS refers to the government’s Rural Development Service, which was responsible for agri-environment
delivery at the time.
76
FWAG was an independent Registered Charity established and overseen by farmers which operated
throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and formerly Scotland), to provide environmental and
conservation advice to farmers. It was a major source of advice for ‘classic’ agri-environment schemes and
provided advice on Environmental Stewardship. Initially this mostly concerned HLS, as funding was available
for advisory support, but this was extended to ELS through ETIP (see below).
89
20,000 advisory contacts were made77. The ETIP programme has been more active in
providing one-to-one visits, while LMAS has made more contacts through group events.
Support services for entry-level agri-environment applicants in Scotland
At present there is no provision of on-farm advice or a dedicated advisory network for the
entry-level scheme in Scotland, in contrast to the service provided in England. The entrylevel scheme Land Managers Options (which combines measures from all three EARD axes)
has remained a ‘hands off’ scheme, with support confined to the guidance booklet,
information from the government website and a telephone answering service. The guidance
booklet advises farmers that “our staff can only give you general guidance, not specific
business advice. If in doubt, ask a professional adviser for help” and refers the reader to a
website with up-to-date details of the scheme options. Despite the lack of entry-level
advisory support for LMOs, a survey carried out for the RDP mid-term evaluation indicated
that levels of satisfaction among applicants are relatively good, compared to the higherlevel scheme. The entry-level scheme scored around 3.5 out of 5 for relevance, quality and
accessibility, for various aspects of the application process, and for support provided (Rural
Development Company Ltd, 2010).
The government’s conservation agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, does fund some advice,
mainly targeted towards higher-level agri-environment management of Natura 2000 sites
and species. It also provides more general advice, for example a two-year campaign of
advice on management for arable wildlife78; produces publications such as a poster on ‘How
to enhance the value of field boundaries for wildlife’; and provides links to other sources of
advice such as environmental NGOs79. Advice is available from professional advisory bodies
such as the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC)80, and other consultants, but farmers need to
pay for this and the costs are subsidised only for the higher-level scheme, Rural Priorities.
The Campaign for the Farmed Environment in England
Following the abolition of set-aside, concerns in England over the potential loss of
environmental benefits led to a government review of alternative options (Curry, 2008) and
a proposal for a new GAEC standard, requiring farmers to manage a certain proportion of
their arable land in environmentally beneficial ways to recapture the benefits of set-aside.
This government proposal was not implemented, but the farming industry’s alternative
proposal for a voluntary Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE) was accepted by the
Minister on the understanding that the regulatory route would be followed up if the
voluntary approach did not work. CFE is a joint promotional and advisory initiative by the
agricultural industry81, Defra, Natural England and non-government stakeholders, partly
funded by Defra (CFE, 2010). Its objectives include encouraging farmers to undertake
77 J. Marsden, Natural England, pers. comm.
78 http://www.snh.gov.uk/land-and-sea/managing-the-land/farming-crofting/advice-demo/
79 http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/19/11/2011/130185/FWAG-closure-means-120-jobs-could-go.htm
80 http://www.sac.ac.uk/consulting/services/s-z/srdp/sacservices/ (accessed 4 July 2011)
81 represented by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and the Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
90
voluntary management that will benefit the environment, helping to achieve Natural
England’s target for 70 per cent of farmland (UAA) within an agri-environment agreement
by March 201182, and doubling the uptake of entry-level agri–environment 'in-field' options
(a group of ELS options that were considered to be particularly valuable in terms of
mitigating the loss of set-aside, but had not been popular with farmers).
A communications network was established to promote these aims, with printed materials,
national and local events, media coverage, promotion by Campaign partners and wider
industry and a website. A training programme was developed for agronomists and advisers,
local liaison groups were set up and ‘beacon farms’ nominated to demonstrate the
Campaign working in practice. After the first year of the Campaign a survey of farmers found
that 19 per cent had a good understanding of the Campaign and a further 39 per cent had
some understanding, while 25 per cent of farms have already taken direct action in
response to the Campaign.
7.3 Characteristics of effective support networks
The experiences described here of using support networks for entry-level agri-environment
schemes in the case study Member States illustrates both the diversity of provision and the
extent of some common problems, for example in providing a consistent level of support in
regional offices, in creating and maintaining institutional capacity for environmental advice
and building trust between farmers and government advisers.
In a recent report to the European Parliament it is argued that greater emphasis on (and
availability of) advice and effective extension services will be essential if EU agriculture is to
provide environmental and other public goods in future. The report suggests that this will
require a combination of extending the FAS beyond cross-compliance (this is already
possible if Member States choose to do so), making more use of the advisory measures
within Pillar 2 and greater provision of nationally funded extension services (Hart et al,
2011). The recent Commission proposals for the future CAP reflect this need by placing a far
greater emphasis on the role of advice. It is clear, however, that simply incorporating agrienvironment advice into the current FAS structure is unlikely to be sufficient, given that the
FAS evaluation (ADE, 2009, European Commission, 2010) found that large farms were the
main beneficiaries of the FAS, and that it was not an effective tool for appealing to farmers
and changing their views on sustainable farming. If the FAS is to be used to extend the
provision of advice to agri-environment schemes as proposed then changes will be needed
to the way in which it is designed and implemented on the ground.
Drawing on the literature, the findings of the cases studies and the expertise of the research
team it is clear that effective support networks for entry-level agri-environment schemes
share at least some the following characteristics:

Support is targeted at both scheme priorities and farmers’ needs, and is sufficiently
flexible to address the specific needs of individual farmers;
82 The start of the CFE coincided with the end
of the first tranche of five year agreements under the entry-level
schemes, and the challenge was to achieve a high level of renewals with, preferably, a more favourable
profile of option uptake.
91






The support framework has the capacity to cater for needs of different groups of
farmers eligible for the same entry-level scheme, needs which will depend on the
farmers’ administrative capacity, technical understanding and existing sources of
advice;
Networks offer consistent advice from a range of providers at national and
regional/municipal level;
Support is available in a form and a place that is easily accessible to the target
farmers, whether this is a national website with detailed information, publications, a
helpline or one-to-one advice in a local office;
Information on administrative rules, agri-environment management requirements,
scheme eligibility and targeting is consistent and up-to-date across all sources;
Farmers have access to technical agri-environment advice free of charge from a
trusted source which understands the relationship between the agri-environment
requirements and the farming system;
Support is available throughout the whole period of an agri-environment contract,
not just during the application and setting-up process.
Examples of effective support networks from the case study countries are shown in Box 7.1
Box 7.1: Examples of effective support networks for entry-level agri-environment schemes
Mobile advisory teams in Bulgaria
This five-year project is managed by the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds with funding from the
UNDP and runs until 2012, aims to ensure the long-term conservation of HNV grasslands in Bulgaria and assists
with the preparation and implementation of agri-environment management plans in the pilot areas.
Two mobile teams of consultants (two to three persons each) provide advice and support for interested
farmers both on the project grant scheme and RDP support. They work throughout the whole process with the
farmers: from the identification of their support needs, to the development and submission of the application,
all the way through implementation and final reporting. This includes the identification of their land in the LPIS
because land eligibility is a serious issue at least in one of the project sites. The teams also support farmers in
their transactions for renting pastures from municipal authorities.
The team in Besseparski Hills has, since 2008, been assisting three farmers to apply for support under the
2007-2013 RDP entry-level agri-environment programme, and in 2011 they assisted 11 more farmers to apply
for Natura 2000 payments. During the application window (March – June) the team provided more than 30
consultations in Ministry municipal offices and organised two information days in Bratsigovo and Stamboliisky
municipalities.
In 2010 a special reference book of key farmland bird species was published and distributed among farmers.
The book consists of 96 pictures of farmland bird species, with information about their main characteristics
and importance, breeding and feeding areas, etc.
According to the project team, the key factor for the success of any agri-environment action is the intensive
technical support and consultations that should be provided to the interested and participating farmers.
Without it the biodiversity conservation goals can hardly be achieved.
Source: Interview with the mobile team in Besseparski Hills; BSPB, Project “Conservation of globally important
biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy”
website : http://bspb-grasslands.org/
92
A farmer-led initiative for water protection in Finland
The TEHO project (2008 - 2010) is the first of its kind in Finland, in that it is a bottom-up approach instigated
and led by two regional branches of the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners in
Varsinais-Suomi and Satakunta in southwest Finland. The focus is on promoting agricultural water protection,
with project funding coming from the national agricultural and environmental Ministries and the region, as
well as from the Union itself.
The project covers around 12,000 farms and 20 per cent of Finnish arable land. The aim is to find the most
suitable farm-specific measures for water protection, working in close co-operation with farmers and to
develop an environmental protection handbook for the use of the farmers. The results, conclusions and
experience are being utilised in the preparation of the next agri-environment programme in Finland from
2014.
The project has published ten reports on different aspects of environmental and cost-efficient management on
farms, including the use of agri-environment schemes, and also leaflets on specific topics (for example, how to
define the width of the buffer strips required for various ditch types as part of entry-level compliance). All the
materials are available online and have been widely distributed among farmers. They represent a unique
advisory resource for famers seeking both management solutions and environmental support payments. The
project will continue until 2013.
Source: Finland case study
Advice on Catchment Sensitive Farming in England
The England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI) was established in 2006, as part of a
programme funded by the Department of Food and Rural Affairs to tackle diffuse water pollution from
agriculture, in order to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The Initiative funds both a programme of farm advice and associated investment support and is run as a
partnership between Defra, Natural England and the Environment Agency. It originally provided advice to
farmers in 40 priority catchments, identified by the Environment Agency and Natural England based on WFD
risk maps and designated sites at risk from diffuse pollution. The number was extended to 50 in 2008, covering
around 40 per cent of the agricultural land in England (Grischeff et al., 2010). This advice is provided by
Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers (CSFOs) and by specialist advisers, through workshops, seminars, farm
demonstrations and a substantial programme of one-to-one farm visits. CSFOs have a particular role to ensure
that farmers select the Environmental Stewardship options of most benefit to water quality (ECSFDI 2008,
Grischeff et al. (2010) provide a list of these). The Initiative was originally funded for two years, then in 2008
funding was extended until 2011, and has recently been renewed for a further three years, to 2014 (Natural
England 2011).
A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework has been established, which includes farmer surveys,
records of changes in farming practice, modelling of impacts and, in the longer term, measures of changes in
water quality. The report on phase 1 of the Initiative covered the period April 2006-March 2008 (ECSFDI 2008).
The report on the second phase is due shortly.
Source: UK case study
iLPIS – internet-based support for applicants to entry-level agri-environment schemes in the Czech Republic
The Land Parcel Identification Service (LPIS), which is available to farmers free of charge via internet, is called
iLPIS and provides detailed map and orthophoto based information at the scale of individual parcels for:
NVZs: farmers can see the management required within each parcel, which varies with the characteristics of
the land.
Agri-environment scheme applications (per parcel):
 information on records of nutrient use, current schemes, LFA, protected area, Natura 2000, NVZs;
 landscape features – state, type, responsibilities;
93
 nesting places of birds, habitat types on grassland; and
 suitability for conversion to grassland.
This means that farmers can see on the map which parcel is suitable for which scheme.
Additional properties of iLPIS which farmers can use:
 tools for using the map (printing, measuring distance and area, making additions to the map e.g.
manure storage, changing parcels);
 overview of measures applied to individual parcel;
 exporting data from iLPIS, e.g. for GPS;
 layers showing the level of erosion risk, recommendations for each parcel, a facility to search for and
print details of parcels with risk of erosion;
 inputs of crop rotation; and
 proposals for the use of fertilisers.
The map below shows, at field-scale, the risk of soil erosion (green lines are boundaries of field parcels and
red areas represent the land at most risk of erosion). Maps like this are available online as part of the LPIS for
all farmers to use in applying GAEC soil standards and agri-environment requirements to their land, but the
map for agri-environment management is simpler (source: Mistr 2010).
Source: Portál farmáře – Nový iLPIS, Sitewell s.r.o., 2010,
http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/farmar/LPIS/uzivatelske-prirucky/lpis-pro-farmare/prirucka-pro-praci-silpis.html
7.4
Effect of participation in entry-level schemes on farmers’ attitudes to environmental
issues
This section considers the extent to which participation in entry-level schemes in the case
study countries has made farmers more receptive to environmental issues generally, and
whether, as a result, they are more likely to join more demanding/higher-level agrienvironment schemes. Isolating the effect of entry-level participation from other influences
on farmers’ attitudes and behaviour is not easy, however and much of the available
information is anecdotal or covers wider issues.
94
In Bulgaria there has only been four years of agri-environment implementation, severely
hampered by administrative problems and delays. This was preceded by a five year delay in
implementation of the SAPARD measure which led to disappointment and loss of motivation
by farmers. These experiences and other administrative problems (for example changes in
LPIS, inability to combine agri-environment actions on one parcel of land) coloured farmers’
opinions of agri-environment support. Farmers’ attitudes were examined as part of the MTE
of the 2007-2013 RDP. Farmers state that the main reason for applying for agri-environment
support is that this would improve their farm income. The second reason is to meet
environmental costs which cannot be covered otherwise. The importance of nature
conservation and environment comes in third place. Understandably, the majority of
farmers planned to use the agri-environment payments to cover operational costs, which is
consistent with the philosophy of agri-environment payment calculations. Interestingly, the
second intended use of the money was on machines and equipment, which on the one hand
is justified by the overall low level of farm equipment in Bulgaria, but on the other hand
implies that farmers may be unwilling to adopt additional agri-environment actions if these
require additional and specialised equipment which they lack (although this is not often
likely to be the case).
Farmers’ receptiveness to environmental issues generally or to more demanding
environmental actions was not studied specifically as part of the MTE of the Bulgarian RDP,
but around 10 per cent of the farmers interviewed stated that they would increase their
environmental activities to a moderate to significant degree even if they ceased
implementing the agri-environment measure, and 43 per cent of respondents said that
there would be no change in their actions, indicating that more than half of the participating
farmers are committed in one way or another to environmental land management.
In the Czech Republic there is some evidence that farmers have learned about the
environment from their involvement in entry level schemes and in a few cases this has even
influenced then to join higher level schemes. However, this effect is more noticeable in the
case of more targeted schemes (Wollmuthova and Skorpikova 2008). The effect may
depend on the scheme. For example some farmers understand the benefits of cover crops
and are now more environmentally conscious, but there is much less effect for grassland
management, where there is little face to face advice or explanation of the purpose of the
schemes83 and the lack of trust by farmers of more distant information sources prevents
them accepting the rationale behind the schemes (Prazan 2007). When asked about their
motivation to join the agri-environment programme, 26.3 per cent of farmers mentioned
environmental concerns and seven per cent lifestyle. Several of them provide some
environmental services even without agri-environment participation, for example erosion
prevention, reduction of fertilisers and pesticide use, management of landscape features,
and enrichment of crop rotation (Wollmuthová and Skorpíková 2008). Other than the
opinion of experts, there is no evidence of the influence of entry level schemes on farmers’
willingness to participate in higher level schemes. One source said that farmers who joined
the entry level scheme for grassland management were likely to join the higher-level
83 source: researcher who coordinated design of the schemes, policy consultant
95
scheme for permanently wet and peat meadows84. In the Czech Republic there is anecdotal
evidence that, as a result of the agri-environment scheme, some farmers have adopted the
practice of growing covers crops (not used in the Czech Republic in the 1990s) and now
understand the benefits.
Almost universal participation in the entry-level scheme in Finland makes it impossible to
test its effects on farmer attitudes. Personal communication from several interviewees
suggest that the programme with its ‘broad nature’ and wide coverage has considerably
contributed to the farmers’ awareness of environmental issues (especially in the case of
water protection), stating that ‘one of the whole points of the AEP is to increase awareness’
and ‘farmers are pushed to think about inputs and to keep records’. However, the
universality and extent of these effects on farmers’ attitudes cannot be ascertained.
Potential perverse impacts on farmers’ environmental attitudes may result in actions that
were originally driven by cultural perceptions of ‘good farming’ practice becoming
dependent on monetary stimuli. There is also a concern that the current stringent controlbased system alienates recipients from the ‘good behaviour’ culture typical of Finland
(MTE). One observer commented that ‘paper-based control eats up honesty’.
Box 7.2: Farmers’ attitudes to agri-environment payments in a village in Poland
In the village of Sucha in the Pionki community in central-east Poland more than 30 farmers implement the ten
entry-level agri-environment management actions selected for this study. Their response to the huge changes
in Polish agriculture over the past 10 years helps to explain why agri-environment payments are regarded by
most Polish farmers simply as another source of income support.
Before accession to the EU all the farms were engaged in
Location of Sucha village in Poland
agricultural production and each farm sold some products to the
market. Milk production was especially popular and it is said
that in 1990 there were more than 600 cows. By the beginning
of 2000 the number of cows had dropped to around 100 but
milk was still sold to local dairies and on the market. As a result
of intensive efforts by the extension service to provide
information about CAP direct payments and other EU support, a
lot of farmers decided to participate in the agri-environment
programme, mostly signing up to actions such sustainable
farming, extensive meadows and pastures and soil protection.
Today there are just two cows in the village and milk is sold only
to village residents. Farmers have reduced agricultural
production to the absolute minimum, while still fulfilling all the
agri-environment requirements, and undertake work outside
the farm, or in some cases do nothing. One farmer85,
interviewed by the case study author, expressed the general
Source: Google maps
view of the group that the income from direct payments and the
agri-environment programme is more profitable then agricultural production and, for those willing to accept a
low standard of living, is enough to live on.
Source: Maciejczak M (pers. comm)
84 source: case study interview with policy consultant and adviser
85 Identity withheld, at the farmer’s request.
96
In Poland recent studies of farmers’ attitudes reveal that agri-environment support is seen
by farmers simply as an additional source of household income. They generally do not
understand the environmental and nature conservation goals of the programme or that
they are being compensated for providing public goods to society (the views of farmers in
one Polish village are described in Box 7.2). The supporting institutions and the farmers have
very different views of the agri-environment programme and it has been suggested that,
paradoxically, the long term effect of the schemes currently implemented might lead not to
enrichment of biodiversity but to undermining regions’ natural identity. This is due not just
to a lack of understanding on the part of the farmers but also to the way information is
provided, an over-simplification of the schemes and a lack of regional and local
differentiation in management requirements.
In England (UK), as part of the initial evaluation of the entry-level scheme in 2005-06,
farmers were asked why they had joined the scheme. Compatibility with existing practices
and environmental or conservation benefits were the most common reasons (49 per cent
and 46 per cent respectively) and overall 38 per cent of respondents mentioned financial
benefits, but only 13 per cent were motivated by purely financial reasons. A postal survey of
scheme participants five years later (2011) asked farmers ‘How has membership of the
scheme affected your attitude to environmental protection/conservation? Do you feel more
positive, less positive or about the same?’ Of the 238 responses received, 55 per cent felt
more positive, 43 per cent about the same, and only two per cent felt less positive. 93 per
cent said that they would renew their entry-level contract. A current Defra-funded study is
investigating farmer attitudes to environmental management86 and, asked what the study
was revealing about the effect of ELS on farmer attitudes, the study director said:
‘There is evidence from our interviews that participation in ELS has increased farmer's
awareness of the environmental issues that are pertinent to agri-environment schemes, but
less so their attitudes. If the options they implement have a dramatic effect on the wildlife
they see then this can have a positive impact on their attitudes and they become more
engaged with the environmental issues. However, this is less likely to happen with ELS.’87
Similar surveys in Scotland (UK) for the MTE found that farmers’ attitudes to agrienvironment measures had changed ‘moderately’, but this survey did not distinguish
between entry-level and higher-level schemes.
There is little evidence as to whether membership of entry level schemes increases the
likelihood of joining higher level schemes in the UK. In England (UK) entry-level participation
is a condition of application for the higher-level scheme, which is competitive, so
participation in both reflects not just the farmer’s desire to join but also how well the
application meets environmental targets. In contrast to the situation in England, entry-level
participation is not a pre-requisite for joining the higher-level scheme in Scotland (UK),
where both schemes cover measures under all three axes and the higher level is by far the
larger in terms of both commitment and actual expenditure, although there are more entry86http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&Proje
ctID=17403#Description
87 UK case study
97
level contracts. In October 2011 there were 6,221 contracts with agri-environment options,
of which 1,886 were higher-level only and 3,502 were entry-level only. Just 853 agreements
have agri-environment options at both levels, which suggests that the schemes are seen
independently, rather than entry-level acting as a primer for higher-level.
The limited evidence available suggests that farmers’ attitudes to the environment and
willingness to join agri-environment schemes may be influenced by a wide range of factors,
including benefits to farm income and ease of implementation within the current farm
system. In some cases there is evidence that participation in entry-level schemes has had a
positive influence on farmers’ attitudes to the environment generally; in others
opportunities to influence attitudes have been missed through failures to provide farmers
with appropriate information, particularly about the environmental objectives of the
schemes.
98
8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter outlines the main conclusions of the study and sets out recommendations for
the design and implementation of entry-level agri-environment schemes in the future.
Agri-environment policy is a long-established part of the CAP, which now plays a key role in
addressing the Community’s wide range of environmental priorities on almost 40 per cent
of EU land that is under agricultural management. For the past 20 years it has been the only
compulsory measure within rural development programmes, delivered through multiannual contracts with individual farmers. The agri-environment programmes in the 88 RDPs
of the EU-27 vary considerably in scope and structure, but typically include several schemes
addressing a range of environmental priorities and types of land, with farm-level
requirements of differing levels of complexity and ambition. These differences are
characterised broadly as ‘entry-level’ and ‘higher-level’ and the focus of this study is on
entry-level agri-environment management. This may be described as being fairly simple
management achievable by the majority of farmers without major change to their existing
farming systems; often relatively close to the environmental reference level which forms the
baseline for agri-environment payments under the relevant legislation; and accessible
through a non-competitive application and approval process which is largely administrative.
Many agri-environment programmes have separate entry-level schemes, although these are
not usually described as such. They may apply to the whole farm or just specific land or
crops, may offer farmers a choice of management options or be compulsory to some extent,
and may be targeted at different farming systems, geographical zones or environmental
priorities. Some agri-environment schemes include both entry-level and higher-level
options, in others participation in an entry-level scheme can be a prerequisite of applying
for higher-level schemes.
The aim of this study was gain a better understanding of the design and implementation
entry-level agri-environment schemes within the EU-27 RDPs for 2007-13. This required the
diversity of entry-level agri-environment support in the EU to be reviewed and categorised.
Entry-level management actions (what the farmer is required to do) were used as the
common unit of analysis for this purpose, to eliminate any distorting effect of differences in
the structure and terminology of entry-level schemes. This analysis formed the basis of a
typology of entry-level agri-environment management against environmental objectives.
The focus of the second stage of the study was to consider in more depth selected entrylevel schemes in seven Member States, where case studies were used to gather more
detailed information on scheme design, implementation and farmers’ attitudes.
This study does not attempt to evaluate the environmental impact of entry-level agrienvironment schemes, nor does it cover agri-environment support for organic farming,
integrated production and genetic resources, because these were not considered to be
entry-level in character.
99
The typology illustrates the diversity of entry-level management actions, their potential to
deliver against a wide range of environmental objectives and their distribution within
Europe
A key characteristic of environmental policy within the CAP is that farm-level environmental
requirements should be defined by national or regional authorities, within a framework set
at EU level, reflecting local needs and priorities. Any expectation that a typology of entrylevel agri-environment management might consist of only a few categories of rather
standardised requirements has been refuted by this analysis, which illustrates the diversity
of entry-level management requirements implemented in different Member States.
In the EU-27 RDPs entry-level agri-environment management actions are available to
support environmental management within almost all farming systems including arable,
livestock, horticulture, permanent crops and rice. A total of 63 different types of agrienvironment management actions were identified, grouped into 15 broad categories and
pursuing nine broad EU environmental objectives.
There are some striking differences between RDPs in terms of the range of entry-level
management actions used within their agri-environment schemes. These range from as few
as five of the 63 different types to more than twenty-five. However, the most commonly
used entry-level actions (in more than two-thirds of the 81 continental RDPs) relate to four
of the 15 categories:
 managing grass and semi-natural forage;
 restricting the use of fertilisers and agro-chemicals;
 protecting soils; and
 keeping records or preparing management plans.
The EU-15 RDPs tend to use a broader range of entry-level actions than those in the EU-12,
perhaps reflecting their longer history of agri-environment development. However, this
distinction does not hold true for individual RDPs within these two groups. The categories of
entry-level actions in the RDPs for the outermost regions are similar to those found in
continental Europe, which suggests that the classification of management actions used for
the typology is robust in the widest EU context.
Some types of management action have quite similar farm-level requirements wherever
they are used, for example maintaining green soil cover over winter, or restrictions on
hedge trimming during the bird breeding season. Others may differ quantitatively: for
example minimum and maximum stocking densities, frequency and timing of mowing
grassland, limitations on fertiliser rates, numbers of crops in a rotation. Such differences
cannot be interpreted directly as a representation of how ‘demanding’ the requirements
are, for two key reasons. Firstly the reference level varies from one RDP to another, so
identical requirements in two RDPs may have a different relationship with the reference
level. Secondly, requirements relating to stocking density and fertiliser requirements
inevitably vary with the soil type, crop, vegetation cover and climate, so environmentally
appropriate levels will differ from place to place.
There are some common patterns in the way in which entry-level management actions are
packaged together within agri-environment schemes, for example structured around an
100
objective (reducing nutrient run-off), an environmental feature (field boundaries) or a type
of land use (arable cropping, extensive grassland management).
Many types of entry-level management action have the potential to contribute concurrently
to multiple environmental objectives, most commonly farmland biodiversity, climate change
adaptation, agricultural landscapes and soil functionality. The following categories of
management actions contribute to almost all of the nine EU environmental objectives used
in the typology, although the extent to which they do so in practice will depend on the
detailed management undertaken and the area over which they are implemented:
 farmland not used for production;
 permanent pasture;
 traditional crops and grassland;
 some types of green soil cover; and
 farmer training, management plans and record keeping.
Differing structures of entry-level schemes and levels of experience in implementation
The case studies illustrate a number of different structural models that have been designed
for agri-environment programmes. In some the agri-environment programme consists
entirely of entry-level schemes (Bulgaria), in others these are combined with higher-level
schemes (Finland, France, Poland and England (UK)) and one has an entry-level scheme that
offers agri-environment options alongside those for forestry, Axis 1 and Axis 3 (Scotland
(UK). These structural choices seem to reflect not just the environmental priorities and
agricultural situations in Member States but also the relative importance of the agrienvironment measure within RDPs, the level of experience of the managing authorities in
designing and delivering agri-environment schemes and the capacity of both institutions and
farmers.
The effect of ‘inexperience’ in implementation is particularly evident in Bulgaria, where
delivery of a well-designed entry-level scheme, carefully targeted at key EU biodiversity
priorities, has largely failed because of institutional problems, conflicts with other nationally
defined elements of agriculture policy, and a regulatory rather than supportive approach to
farmers. In Poland, also with very little previous experience of agri-environment schemes
and many small farms, uptake targets have been met for the first national scheme, although
with less environmental differentiation than in the previous scheme.
The link and degree of fit between the structure and content of entry-level schemes and
national or regional environmental priorities is clearer in some case study Member States
than others. Common entry-level priorities are the protection and management of soils and
the reduction of diffuse pollution (for example, Finland and the Czech Republic where these
are key environment priorities); biodiversity is an entry-level priority in some of the case
studies, for example England (UK) and in the two EU-12 Member States where existing HNV
farmland is at risk (Bulgaria and Poland).
Relationship between the reference level and entry-level agri-environment schemes
The study has confirmed the expected variability of the reference level between Member
States and regions, much of it due to differences in local legislation and GAEC crosscompliance standards defined by Member States within the EU framework to take account
101
of different bio-geographic factors, farming systems and other local conditions. At farm
scale, environmental designations such as Natura 2000 and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones can
result in different reference level requirements applying between and even within individual
farms. In one case study country (Bulgaria) a GAEC standard has been introduced specifically
for HNV farmland, and forms the baseline for an entry-level scheme that is also available to
farmers who do not qualify for Pillar 1 payments.
Seven of the eight most commonly occurring types of management in entry-level agrienvironment schemes88 can also be found as standards within the reference level. These
two policy measures are therefore closely related and any changes to the reference level
necessitate changes in the management requirements and payment rates of associated agrienvironment schemes.
Where it has been possible to examine a lengthy time series of entry-level schemes, as in
France, it is fairly clear that as the reference level has become more demanding, so have the
agri-environment requirements and payment rates have increased too, although not always
proportionally. In the UK, cross-compliance was first introduced when it was optional and
since then the main driver of change in the reference level seems to have been the need to
adjust to GAEC standards, as a result of changes in EU legislation. Changes in the reference
are not the only reason for revisions to agri-environment schemes, which may be necessary
to improve environmental impact or uptake. Agri-environment schemes are voluntary, and
must be responsive to the changing policy and economic context within which a farm
business operates.
The current CAP reform proposals to make a proportion of Pillar 1 direct payments
conditional upon undertaking certain environmental management actions would raise the
reference level for agri-environment schemes. In some cases, certain management actions
may need to move from current agri-environment schemes into the new ‘green’ payments,
and this is likely to require revisions to the design and payment rates for entry-level
schemes. Related higher-level schemes may also have to be revised. This may have an effect
on uptake of entry-level schemes, although the extent to which this is likely is impossible to
predict at this stage.
Payment rates and their use in scheme design
Member States have applied the inherent flexibility of rules governing the agri-environment
measure in successive CAP regulations not just to designing management actions but to
scheme design and pricing too. There are many variations and refinements of the structural
and payment frameworks for entry-level management actions within the requirements set
by the EU Regulation. The different types of payment structures include payments per
hectare of land in a specific type of management, or for the whole farm. Payments may be
flat rate, degressive or capped. Where several entry-level schemes exist within one agrienvironment programme, it may be possible to combine some (but not others) on the same
area of land or within the same farm.
88
Management of grass and semi-natural forage; input management; management plans and record keeping;
soil cover; soil management; buffer strips; and landscape feature management.
102
Annual payments are made per hectare or per metre (for linear features such as hedges)
and may be differentiated by bio-geographical zone, farming systems or by soil type. Quite
often less than 100 per cent of the net calculation used for the payment rate, and in such
cases there may be scope to vary this proportion as a means of incentivising uptake of the
more environmentally beneficial options. There is very limited use of transaction costs, with
only one of the seven case study Member States routinely adding this (Finland), although
there appear to be other cases where it may be justified, especially where farmers complain
of the administrative burden or the need to seek advice.
Targeting and differentiation of entry-level management requirements
In some of the case study countries considerable efforts have been made to target entrylevel agri-environment management at specific environmental features or areas at risk, by
defining eligible geographic areas (the Czech Republic), prioritising applications from target
zones (Bulgaria) and in one example selectively adjusting payment rates within the
calculation framework (UK). Delivering this level of targeting across large numbers of farms
requires easily accessible and comprehensive definition of the target parameters at farm
level. In the Czech Republic very effective use has been made of very detailed soil and
grassland maps made available online to farmers through a GIS adaptation of the LPIS
system. By contrast, in Bulgaria, entry-level management actions that differentiated
between undergrazed and overgrazed HNV pastures could not be implemented because
these areas could not be readily identified for implementation and control purposes.
Factors affecting uptake of entry-level agri-environment schemes
There is a wide range of factors that influence uptake of agri-environment schemes.
Evidence from the case studies shows that the relationship between these different factors
can be quite complex and the effects are not always easily predicted. One of the key factors
influencing uptake appears to be how easily the required management fits into the existing
farming system, although studies in the UK suggest that farmers may sometimes
underestimate how much change in management practice will actually be required and
uptake may suffer if just one element of a scheme is unacceptable to farmers. Payments,
which are perceived to be too low, or reductions in existing payments may lead to lower
levels of uptake, but paradoxically sometimes seem to have little effect. Conversely, some
well-rewarded agri-environment actions may be very popular, but the uptake of others can
be poor, especially on arable farms where there may be alternative, economically attractive
uses for the land. There is some evidence of entry-level schemes providing a significant
additional income stream which helps farmers to resist economic pressures to change
farming systems that already provide environmental benefits. For example, the
maintenance of the environmental value of existing extensively managed grasslands and
semi-natural forage areas often depends on the continuation of marginally economic
livestock systems. In both environmental and social terms it is more effective to keep these
systems in place than to attempt restoration after livestock farming has ceased.
The main positive influences on uptake may be summarised as:
 requirements that fit well with the farming system that is already in place, or can be
adopted without significant change;
 agri-environment management targeted at the less productive areas of the farm,
such as poorer soils and field edges;
103

synergy between agri-environment management and arable cropping systems, for
example by improving soil protection;
 the positive contribution of agri-environment income to the survival of economically
marginal farms, especially in areas at risk of abandonment.
Factors that can significantly inhibit uptake include:
 a lack of capacity on the part of the farmer or farm business, in terms of technical
knowledge, understanding or administrative ability;
 farmers’ concerns about the effect of agri-environment management on crop yields
or quality;
 payment rates that are perceived by farmers as insufficient, especially where farms
are small in scale;
 lack of institutional capacity and delays in application processes or payments can
discourage farmers from applying for agri-environment support.
Experience of designing and revising entry-level schemes, and the development of
institutional and farmer capacity in implementation
All the case study schemes had their origins in earlier RDPs, national schemes or pilot
programmes. Some Member States with extensive experience of agri-environment
implementation use small-scale pilot testing and evaluation of new entry-level schemes and
management options, (UK, and more recently Finland). This can be a cost-effective way of
testing management requirements, payment rates, delivery processes and farmer reactions.
In most cases a wide range of stakeholders are involved in scheme design, with on-going
benefits of ‘social learning’ which extend into the delivery process. In Italy for example,
efforts to involve farmers (the potential beneficiaries) as equal partners in scheme design
seem to have been particularly rewarding, and have led to high uptake levels of a new
biodiversity scheme.
Entry-level schemes may be revised for the start of a new programme or during its course,
and the frequency, type and purpose of revisions also varies considerably between RDPs.
Drivers of change include problems of implementation and uptake, changes to the reference
level and the need to improve environmental effectiveness and geographical targeting. In
some cases considerable efforts are made to obtain and use evidence to design schemes
and improve the effectiveness of entry-level management. A feature of UK agrienvironment schemes is a review process during the first two years of a new scheme.
Farmer support networks can make a significant contribution to the effective delivery of
entry-level agri-environment schemes, and failure to provide these can limit agrienvironment uptake and effectiveness. To be effective, however, the information provided
must be accurate, up to date and relevant to the differing needs of individual farmers.
Support and advisory services may need to be differentiated for specific target groups (for
example large intensive commercial farms and small family farms) and it is important that
the source is trusted by the farmers.
Opportunities may have been missed to use entry-level schemes to influence farmers’
attitudes to the environment
104
There is very little empirical evidence on the effect of participation in entry-level agrienvironment schemes on farmers’ attitudes to the environment, or on their participation in
higher-level agri-environment schemes, although some schemes seem to have raised
awareness of environmental issues more generally. Some opportunities to influence
attitudes have been missed through failures to provide farmers with appropriate
information, particularly about the environmental objectives of schemes. A requirement for
agri-environment training as part of entry-level schemes might help to solve some of these
problems. At present the only case study country doing this is Bulgaria, where training was
introduced in 2010.
Recommendations for future entry-level agri-environment schemes
This study has shown that entry-level management actions are included in the agrienvironment programmes of all 88 RDPs, are applicable to all farming systems, and have the
capacity to deliver multiple environmental objectives of importance at EU level. The extent
to which this potential is met depends not just on the type of management actions within
entry-level schemes, but how they are differentiated and targeted to meet local
circumstances and, crucially, on the effective implementation by a significant proportion of
farmers in the most appropriate locations. If this can be achieved, even quite small
incremental increases in environmental management may have a cumulative effect at a
landscape scale. These schemes also provide an opportunity to introduce farmers to the
principles and practice of environmental land management.
In the light of the findings of this study the following recommendations are made for the
design and implementation of future entry-level agri-environment schemes.
In the context of other CAP policies:
 Entry-level agri-environment schemes should continue to provide an incentive for
positive environmental management beyond the reference level, and act as a basis
for more demanding higher-level agri-environment schemes.
 Entry-level schemes have two distinct roles: to improve current levels of
environmental management; and to maintain environmentally appropriate land
management where it already exists but is threatened by external factors
 Entry-level agri-environment schemes must not be seen in isolation, but as part of an
integrated package of support, including LFA and other RDP measures.
 In the context of Pillar 1 support, the broad coverage of entry-level management can
target regional environmental priorities by building upon the environmental
foundation provided by the proposed ‘greening’ measures.
In the design and revision of agri-environment programmes:
 Targeted and differentiated entry-level agri-environment management requirements
and payments should be used to incentivise uptake of the most environmentally
beneficial options; available and emerging technologies offer cost-effective ways of
doing this, for example by integrating environmental resource information with LPIS
and making use of GPS at infield scale.
 There may be a case for revisiting the guidance on transaction costs to ensure that
where needed and appropriate, these are included within the payment calculations.
105





Farm-level advisory and support services can play a critical role in entry-level
schemes, but must be seen to address the needs of the target group of farmers, and
be accessible for the duration of their contracts. One option would be for Member
States to extend the scope of the existing Farm Advisory Services to include agrienvironment advice.
The inclusion of agri-environment training within entry-level schemes could be of
benefit, especially where farmers are unfamiliar with environmental land
management.
Involving farmers in scheme design and review processes can improve capacity
building, understanding and uptake. Providing beneficiaries with feedback on the
environmental impacts of their management reinforces this process.
Small-scale pilot testing and evaluation of schemes or management actions could
improve the efficiency, acceptance and delivery of entry-level schemes, especially
where these are being introduced for the first time.
‘Fast track’ internal review processes during the first two years of a scheme provide
an effective way of identifying and resolving problems before these can affect
implementation or environmental effectiveness.
106
REFERENCES
Aakkula, J., Manninen, T., Nurro, M. (toim.) 2010. Maatalouden ympäristötuen
vaikuttavuuden seurantatutkimus (MYTVAS 3). Väliraportti. 196s.
ADAS (2004) Socio-economic evaluation of CCW’s SSSI management agreements.
ADAS (2008). Long-term Maintenance of Uncommon Arable Plant Populations in Agrienvironment Schemes in England. Phase 1: Scoping Study. Report to Defra, project code
BD1630
ADAS, Central Science Laboratory & Countryside & Community Research Institute (2009).
Evaluation of cross-compliance. Report to Defra Agricultural Change and Environment
Observatory,
March
2009.
https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/research/pdf/XCeval_mar09.pdf
ADE (2009) Evaluation of the Implementation of the Farm Advisory System, Final Report –
Evaluation Part December 2009, in collaboration with ADAS, Agrotec and Evaluators. Report
for the European Commission.
AFI (2008) The Agri-Environmental Footprint Index: Users' Manual. SSPE-CT-2005-006491.
Alliance Environnement (2007) Evaluation of the application of cross compliance as foreseen
under regulation 1782/2003.
APR Campania (2011) Annual Progress Report of Rural Development Programme - Year
2010, Regione Campania, Napoli.
APR Lazio (2011) Annual Progress Report of Rural Development Programme - Year 2010,
Regione Lazio, Roma.
APR Lombardia (2011) Annual Progress Report of Rural Development Programme - Year
2010, Regione Lombardia, Milano.
Bartolini F., Gabaldo A., Viaggi D. (2007) Valutazione dei costi di transazione privati nelle
misure agro-ambientali. Atti del convegno SIDEA 2007, Taormina, 8-9 novembre 2007.
Bartolini F., Gallerani V., Viaggi D. (2011) Connecting Agri-environmental Schemes and Crosscompliance Designs: an Exploratory Case Study in Emilia Romagna in Sorrentino A., Henke
R., Severini S. eds. "The Common Agricultural Policy after the Fischler Reform. National
Implementations, Impact Assessment and the Agenda for Future Reforms", Ashgate.
Bartolini F., Gallerani V., Viaggi D. (2011) What do agri-environmental measures actually
promote? An investigation on AES objectives for the EU 2000-2006 rural development
program Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol 9, No 1.
Becvar, C (2010) GAECs – compliance check in 2010. Presentation of Paying Agency at the
Ministry of Agriculture, Prague.
107
Bertoni D., Cavicchioli D., Pretolani R. and Olper A. (2011) Agri-Environmental Measures
Adoption: New Evidence from Lombardy Region in Sorrentino A., Henke R., Severini S. eds.
"The Common Agricultural Policy after the Fischler Reform. National Implementations,
Impact Assessment and the Agenda for Future Reforms", Ashgate.
Bertoni D., Olper A. (2008) The Political Economy of EU Agri-environmental measures: An
empirical Assessment at the Regional Level, paper prepared to 12th Congress of the
European Association of Agricultural Economists, Ghent, Belgium.
Bishop, J., Garthwaite, D., Jones, N. & Boatman, N. (2007). An evaluation of the relative
difficulty encountered by Upland and Lowland grassland farmers in entering ELS. Final report
to Defra, March 2007.
Blackwell, M.S.A., Hogan, D.V.& Maltby, e. (1999). The use of conventionally and
alternatively located buffer zones for the removal of nitrate from diffuse agricultural run-off.
Water Science and Technology 39: 157-164.
Boatman N, Ramwell CT, Parry H, Jones N, Bishop J, Gaskell P, Short C, Mills J & Dwyer J
(2008). A review of environmental benefits supplied by agri-environment schemes. LUPG
Report contract No. FST20/79/041. http://www.lupg.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=143
Boatman, N., Conyers, S., Parry, H., Pietravalle, S., & Ramwell, C. (2007b) Estimating impacts
of ELS on key biodiversity indicators and diffuse pollution of surface waters by nutrients.
Final Report to Defra, project MA01041.
Boatman, N., Deppe, C., Garthwaite, D., Gregory, S. & Jones, N. (2004). Evaluation of the
pilot Entry Level Scheme, final report to Defra, project ref MA01028. Central Science
Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York.
Boatman, N., Jones, N., Garthwaite, D., Bishop, J., Pietravalle, S., Harrington, P. & Parry, H.
(2007a) Evaluation of the Operation of Environmental Stewardship. Final report to Defra,
project No. MA01028.
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Proj
ectID=13825&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=MA01028&SortString=ProjectCode
&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description
Boatman, N.D. & Stoate, C (2002). Growing crops to provide food for seed-eating farmland
birds in winter. Aspects of Applied Biology 67, Birds and Agriculture, 229-236
Bonnieux, F, Dupraz, P and Latouche, K (2006) Experience with agri-environmental schemes
in EU and non-EU members. Notre Europe.
Borsotto, P., Henke, R., Macrì, M.C. and Salvioni, C. (2008) Participation in Rural Landscape
Conservation Schemes in Italy. Landscape Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, 347 – 363.
Bradbury, R.B.& Allen, D.S. (2003). Evaluation of the impact of the pilot UK Arable
Stewardship Scheme on breeding and wintering birds. Bird Study 50: 131-141.
108
Bradbury, R.B., Browne, S.J., Stevens, D.K.& Aebischer, N.J. (2004). Five-year evaluation of
the impact of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme on birds. Ibis 146 (Supplement 2): 171180.
Brodzińska K. (2009), Kierunki i perspektywy rozwoju programu rolno środowiskowego w
Polsce po roku 2013. Woda-Środowisko-Obszary Wiejskie issue 3 (27) vol. 9, IMUZ Falenty
2009
Brodziński Z. (2008), Wdrażanie programu rolno środowiskowego w opinii doradców. WodaŚrodowisko-Obszary Wiejskie issue 1 (22) vol. 8, IMUZ Falenty 2008
Browne, S.J. & Aebischer, N.J. (2004). Arable Stewardship: impact of the pilot scheme on the
brown hare and grey partridge after five years. Final report to Defra, the Game Conservancy
Trust.
Buckingham, D.L., Atkinson, P.W., Peel, S.& Peach, W.J. (2010). New conservation measures
for birds on grasslands and livestock farms. Lowland Farmland Birds III: delivering solutions
in an uncertain world, Leicester, British Ornithologist's Union.
Buckingham, D.L., Peach, W.J.& Fox, D.S. (2006). Effects of agricultural management on the
use of lowland grassland by foraging birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112:
21-40.
Carasi C., Bruno M.N. (2011) Risaie sotto tutela: l'interessante caso della Lombardia, RRN
Magazine, n. 1 Agosto.
Centre for Rural Economics Research & CJC Consulting (2002). Economic evaluation of agrienvironment schemes. Report to Defra.
CFE (2010) Campaign for the farmed environment,
http://www.cfeonline.org.uk/About-us/About-the-Campaign/
first
annual
report.
Cooper, T, Hart, K and Baldock, D (2009) The Provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture
in the European Union, Report Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development. Report
Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No 30-CE-0233091/00-28,
IEEP, London.
Curry, D. (2002). Farming and Food, a Sustainable Future. Cabinet Office, London.
Deffuant, G (2001) Improving Agri-environmental Policies: a simulation approach to the
cognitive properties of farmers and institutions. IMAGES PROJECT. Fair3 CT 2092.
Defrancesco E., Gatto P., Runge F., Trestini S. (2008) Factors Affecting Farmers' Participation
in Agri-environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective, Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages 114 - 131
Del Giudice T., Panico T. and Pascucci S. (2011) Are Rural Development Strategies Coherent
At Regional Level? Empirical Evidence From Italy, in Sorrentino A., Henke R., Severini S. eds.
109
"The Common Agricultural Policy after the Fischler Reform. National Implementations,
Impact Assessment and the Agenda for Future Reforms", Ashgate.
Dwyer, J et al (2007) Understanding and influencing positive behaviour change in farmers
and land managers. A report for Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs.
CCRI, Macaulay Institute.
Ecoscope Applied Ecologists (2003). Review of agri-environment schemes – monitoring
information and R&D results. Report to Defra, Ref RMP/1596.
ECSFDI (2008). England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative Phase 1 report: April
2006-March 2008.
European Commission (2005) Agri-environment Measures Overview on General Priniciples,
Types of Measures, and Application.
Evans, A.D. (1997). Seed-eaters, stubble fields and set-aside. Brighton Crop Protection
Conference - Weeds. Farnham, British Crop Protection Council: 907-914.
Finn J.A., F. Bartolini, D. Bourke, I. Kurz & D. Viaggi (2009) Ex post environmental evaluation
of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management Volume 52, Issue 5.
Fish, R, Seymour, S and et al (2003) Conserving English landscapes: land managers and agrienvironmental policy. Environment and Planning A, No 35, (1) pp19-41.
Franks, J and Mc Gloin, A (2006) The potential of environmental co-operatives to deliver
landscape-scale environmental and rural policy objectives: Lessons for the UK. Journal of
Rural Studies, No 23, (4) pp473-489.
Garforth, C, Angell, B, Archer, J and Green K. (2003) Fragmentation or creative diversity?
Options in the provision of land management adivsory services. Land Use Policy, No 20,
pp323-333.
Genghini M., Gellini S., Gustin M. (2006) Organic and integrated agriculture: the effects on
bird communities in orchard farms in northern Italy Biodiversity and Conservation, Volume
15, Issue 9, pp. 3077-3094
Gillings, S., Newson, S.E., Noble, D.G.& Vickery, J.A. (2005). Winter availability of cereal
stubbles attracts declining farmland birds and positively influences breeding population
trends. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272: 733-739.
Giupponi C., Ramanzin M., Sturaro E., Fuser S. (2006) Climate and land use changes,
biodiversity and agri-environmental measures in the Belluno province, Italy, Environmental
Science & Policy, Volume 9, Issue 2, April 2006, Pages 163-173.
Golinowska M. (2006), Agri-environmental programmes in the opinion of farm producers.
Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Polniczej We WrocŁawiu – Rolnictwo NR 540/LXXXVII.
110
Grice, P.V., Radley, G.P., Smallshire, D.& Green, M.R. (2007). Conserving England's arable
biodiversity through agri-environment schemes and other environmental policies: a brief
history. Aspects of Applied Biology 81, Delivering Arable Biodiversity: 7-22.
Grischeff, J., Burn, A., Erian, J, & Tytherleigh, A. (2010). The use of Environmental
Stewardship Measures associated with the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery
Initiative in tackling Agricultural Pollution impacting on Sensitive Habitats. Aspects of
Applied Biology 100, Agri-environment schemes – what have they achieved and where do
we go from here?: 181-188
Hart, K, Baldock, D, Tucker, G, Allen, B, Calatrava, J, Black, H, Newman, S, Baulcomb, C,
McCracken, D and Gantioler, S (2011b) Costing the Environmental Needs Related to Rural
Land Management. Report Prepared for DG Environment, Contract No
ENV.F.1/ETU/2010/0019r, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.
Hart, K, Baldock, D, Weingarten, P, Osterburg, B, Povellato, A, Vanni, F, Pirzio-Biroli, C and
Boyes, A (2011a) What tools for the European agricultural policy to encourage the provision
of public goods. Report prepared for the European Parliament, Directorate General for
internal policies. Policy department B: structural and cohesion policies.
IP/B/AGRI/IC/2010_094, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.
Hazeu, G, Elbersen, B, Andersen, E, Baruth, B and van Diepen, K (2010) A biophysical
typology in agri-environmental modelling, in F Brouwer & M Ittersum (eds) Environmental
and Agricultural Modelling: Integrated Approaches for Policy Impact Assessment, pp159187. Springer, London.
Henderson, I.G., Vickery, J.A.& Carter, N. (2004). The use of winter bird crops by farmland
birds in lowland England. Biological Conservation 118(1): 21-32.
Herzon,I., Helenius, J. Kuussaari, M., Mäkinen, T., Tiainen, J.(2010) Agri-environmental
programme in Finland serving biodiversity: working forward. Aspects of Applied Biology,
100. Agri-environment schemes – what have they achieved and where do we go from here? pp
261-269
High, C and Nemes, G (2011) Implementation of Agri-Environmental Programme in Hungary,
in RSA Annual International Conference, 20.4.2011, Newcastle, UK
IEEP (2007) The Study on HNV Indicators for Evaluation. Contract notice 2006-G4-04.
Ingram, J, Short, C, Gaskell, P, Mills, J, Lewis, N, Clark, M, Dennis, E, Fisher, R and Owen, I
(2009) Entry and exit from agri-environmental schemes in Wales. Final report for Welsh
Assembly Government.
Joint Research Centre (2009) Final report on the project 'sustainable agriculture and soil
conservation (SoCo)'. European Commission Joint Research Centre, brussels.
111
Juntti, M and Potter, C (2002) Interpreting and reinterpreting agri-environmental policy:
communication, trust and knowledge in the implementation process. Sociologia Ruralis, No
42, (3) pp215-232.
Koźlicka K., (2007), Master thesis: The ecological awareness of farmers as an indicator of
agri-environmental programmes implemented within the the Omulew and Płodownica
valley. SGGW Warszawa
Kristensen, L and Primdahl J (2006) The Relationship Between Cross Compliance and Agrienvironment Schemes
Kröger L. 2005. Development of the Finnish Agri-environmental Policy as a Learning Process.
European Environment 15:13–26.
Lehtonen, H. (2001). Principles, structure and application of dynamic regional sector model
of Finnish agriculture. PhD thesis, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of
Technology. Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research (MTTL). Publ. 98. 264 p.
Longoni V. (2010) Rice Fields and Waterbirds in the Mediterranean Region and the Middle
East, Waterbirds 33(sp1):83-96.
Longoni, V., Rubolini, D., Ambrosini, R., Bogliani, G. (2011) Habitat preferences of Eurasian
bitterns Botaurus stellaris booming in rice fields: implications for management. Ibis 153:695706.
Luci F. (2011) La considerazione della biodiversità nella valutazione in itinere dei PSR 20072013, AgriRegioniEuropa, Anno 7, n. 26.
Maciejczak M, (2003), STRATEGIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AGRIENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME IN POLAND. WWF, Warsaw
MER Campania (2010) Mid-term Evaluation Report of Rural Development Programme,
Regione Campania, Napoli.
MER Lazio (2010) Mid-term Evaluation Report of Rural Development Programme, Regione
Lazio, Roma.
MER Lombardia (2010) Mid-term Evaluation Report of Rural Development Programme,
Regione Lombardia, Milano.
Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Areas in Poland (2005) Rural Development Plan 20042006, edition December 2005
Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Areas in Poland (2009) Ex-Post assessment of Rural
Development Plan 2004-2006
Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Areas in Poland (2011) Mid-term review of Rural
Development Plan 2007-2013
112
Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Areas in Poland (2011) Rural Development Plan 20072013, edition March 2011
Morris, A.J., Holland, J.M., Smith, B.& Jones, N.E. (2004). Sustainable Arable Farming For an
Improved Environment (SAFFIE): managing winter wheat sward structure for Skylarks
Alauda arvensis. Ibis 146 (Supplement 2): 155-162.
Morris, C (2006) Negotiating the boundary between state-led abd farmers approaches to
knowing nature: An analysis of UK agri-environment schemes. Geoforum, No 37, (1) pp113127.
National Rural Network (2010) Report on cross compliance implementation in Italy –
Extended summary, Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Rome.
Natural England (2011). Environmental Stewardship update. Issue 13, January 2011.
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/esupdate13_tcm6-24724.pdf
(accessed
17
March 2011).
Newcombe, F. (2006). A brief review of Land Management Contracts and their possible use
in the Cairngorms National Park.
Niewęgłowska G. (2006), ZDOLNOŚĆ RODZINNYCH GOSPODARSTW ROLNYCH DO REALIZACJI
PROGRAMU ROLNOŚRODOWISKOWEGO. Ph.D. dissertation. IERiGZ Warszawa
Niewęgłowska G.(2009), Wpływ programu rolno środowiskowego na gospodarstwa rolne w
świetle danych Polskiego FADN z lat 2005-2007. IERiGZ Warszawa
Oppermann, R. (2003) Nature balance scheme for farms -- evaluation of the ecological
situation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, No 98, (1-3) pp463-475.
Oréade Brèche (2005) Evaluation des mesures agro-environnementales.
Posthumus, H and Morris, J (2010) Implications of CAP reform for land management and
runoff control in England and Wales. Land Use Policy, No 27, (1) pp42-50.
Povellato A., Scorzelli D., Franceschetti F., Rossetto L. (2006) L'applicazione delle misure
agroambientali. Fattori socioeconomici e scelte imprenditoriali Economia e Diritto
Agroalimentare, Anno XI, n. 3.
Prazan, J. (2011) Design and assessment of agri-environmental policy tools. Research report
submitted to Ministry of Agriculture. Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information,
Prague.
Prazan, J., Majerova, J., Kapler, P. (2010) Integrating agri-environmental measures in the
protected landscape areas Zdarske vrchy and Bile Karpaty. Case study report of RuDI
project. Funded by the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technology
Development
of
the
European
Commission.
http://www.rudieurope.net/uploads/media/Case-study_Czech_Republic_2.pdf (Accessed on 5 July 2011).
113
Purvis, G, Louwagie, G, Mortimer, S, Finn, J and Park, J (2009) The Agri-environmental
Footprint Index (AFI): a harmonised method for evaluating the effectiveness of EU agrienvironment schemes.
Radley, G., O'Reilly, J.& Jowett, A. (2005). Environmental Stewardship. British Wildlife 16:
257-263.
Ramwell, C.T. & Boatman, N.D. (2010). Assessing the impact of Environmental Stewardship
on the protection of water resources. Aspects of Applied Biology 100, Agri-environment
schemes – what have they achieved and where do we go from here? pp. 175-180.
Rete Rurale Nazionale (2010) Rapporto di applicazione della condizionalità in Italia,
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Roma.
Scheele, M. (1999) Policies to manage local public goods in an EU context, in: Virchow, D.
and von Braun, J. (eds.) Villages in the Future – Crops, Jobs, and Livelihood, Springer:
Hannover.
Scottish Executive (2001). A Forward Strategy for Agriculture. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Smallshire, D, Robertson, P and Thompson, P (2011) Policy into practice: the development
and delivery of agri-environment schemes and supporting advice in England. Ibis, No 146
(Suppl. 2), pp250-258.
Sotherton, N.W. (1991). Conservation headlands: a practical combination of intensive cereal
farming and conservation. The Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields. L. G. Firbank, N. Carter, J.
F. Darbyshire and G. R. Potts. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications: 373-397.
Tsakalou, E and Vlahos, G (2008) AGRIGRID: Methodological grids for payment calculations
in rural development measures in the EU. SSPE-CT-2006-044403.
Viaggi D. (2011) The Future Role Of Agriculture In Multifunctional Rural Development: The
Case Of Italy, APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 5.
Vickery, J.A., Atkinson, P.W., Robinson, L.J., Marshall, E.J.P., West, T., Gillings, S., Wilson, A.,
Kirby, W.& Norris, K. (2002). The effects of different crop stubbles and straw disposal
methods on wintering birds and arable plants. Final report to Defra (BD1610). Thetford,
BTO.
Vickery, J.A., Chamberlain, D., Evans, A., Ewing, S., Boatman, N., Pietravalle, S., Norris, K. &
Butler, S. (2008). Predicting the impact of future agricultural change and uptake of Entry
Level Stewardship on farmland birds. Report to Natural England and Defra, project ref
BD1636. BTO report no. 485.
Wales Audit Office (2007) Tir Gofal.
Walker, K.J., Critchley, C.N.R., Sherwood, A.J., Large, R., Nuttall, P., Hulmes, S., Rose, R. &
Mountford, J.O. (2007). The conservation of arable plants on cereal field margins: an
114
assessment of new agri-environment scheme options in England, UK. Biological
Conservation 136: 260-270.
Wollmuthova, P., Skorpikova, A. (2008). Analysis of factors reducing effectiveness of Agrienvironmental measure in the Czech Republic. Project report for Ministry of Agriculture.
VUZE, Praha.
115
LIST OF SOURCES FOR THE CASE STUDIES
Interviews for Czech Republic case study:
 Ministry of Agriculture - person dealing with measures under Axis II;
 Ms. Anna Vejvodova – independent consultant/adviser
Interviews for Finnish case study:
 Two people from ProAgria (commercial agricultural advisory organization project);
 One of the chief officials working on agri-environment planning in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry;
 TEHO project (see Box 7.1);
 Expert in agricultural biodiversity participating in agri-environment planning;
 Two farmers with long-term experience of the schemes.
Interviews for French case study:
 Representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministère de
l'Alimentation, de l'Agriculture, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l'Aménagement du
Territoire):
o M. Rik VANDERERVEN, chef du bureau des actions territoriales et agroenvironnementales. Direction Générale des Politiques Agricole,
Agroalimentaire et des Territoires ;
o M. Pierre PHALEMPIN: Chargé de mission, Bureau des Actions Territoriales et
Agroenvironnementales, Direction Générale des Politiques Agricole,
Agroalimentaire et des Territoires ;
o M. Frédéric COURLEUX: Chef du bureau de l'évaluation et de l'analyse
économique, Sous direction de la Prospective et de l'Evaluation, Centre
d'Etudes et de Prospective - SG/SSP/SDPE/BEAE ;
o M. Clément VILLIEN: Chargé de mission économie de l'environnement et
évaluation des politiques environnementales, Bureau de l'évaluation et de
l'analyse économique, Centre d'études et de prospective SG/SSP/SDPE/BEAE.
Interviews for Polish case study:
 Three independent experts, Mrs. Dorota Metera, Mr Henryk Runowski and Mr Adam
Was;
 Two experts from paying agency , ARMA;
 Six farmers from Mazovia Province, five of them beneficiaries of the entry-level agrienvironment scheme (all asked for anonymity).
Interviews for Italian case study:
 Antonio Frattarelli and Camillo Zaccarini, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole,
Alimentari e Forestali (MiPAAF), Roma;
 Chiara Carasi, Direzione Generale Agricoltura, Regione Lombardia, Milano;
 Ermes Sagula, Area Ambiente e Territorio, Coldiretti Lombardia, Milano;
 Guido Bronchini, Produzioni Agricole ed Agroalimentari Biologiche ed Ecocompatibili,
Gestione Interventi, Regione Lazio, Roma;
116


Antonella De Marinis and Antonio Irlando, Area 11 Sviluppo attivita' settore primario
Settore interventi per la produzione agricola, produzione agro-alimentare, mercati
agricoli, consulenza mercantile, Regione Campania, Napoli.
Marco Andreozzi, Unità Operativa 13 - Programmazione politiche agricole e sviluppo
rurale, Dipartimento Interventi Strutturali - Assessorato Risorse Agricole e Alimentari
Regione Sicilia, Palermo.
Interviews for the UK case study:
 Representative from Scottish Natural Heritage;
 Representative from RSPB;
 Representative from Natural England.
117
ANNEX 1 - LITERATURE REVIEW OF EXISTING AGRI-ENVIRONMENT TYPOLOGIES
Summary
This literature review shows that there are no approaches to date that take account of
entry-level agri-environment schemes across all 88 RDPs. There appears to be a trade-off for
agri-environment research where detailed analysis of management actions is compromised
by smaller sample sizes. The AFI has developed a typology that could be applied to any farm
across the EU, however, the results are limited to seven case study countries (Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, and the UK) and do not go further because the
analysis becomes too detailed. The benefit of this approach is that each scheme can be
referred to with accuracy even if the authors are unable to reach a conclusive typology for
EU-27 as a whole. This type of conceptual framework that has also been developed in
AgriGrid cannot be applied to a large source of data as both the methodology and results
would be too complex at an EU-27 scale.
Oréade-Brèche (2005) and Bonnieux, et al (2006) have developed typologies that could be
effective if applied to a large scale, but these are not sophisticated enough to distinguish
between entry-level and high-level agri-environmental schemes. There is also an absence of
up to date analysis on the implementation of GAEC standards, and how these relate to the
management supported through agri-environment schemes, with the last comprehensive
review of the implementation of cross compliance undertaken in 2007 (Alliance
Environnement, 2007).
There are several ways of building a typology of agri-environment schemes - for example
structured around environmental objectives or farming systems or management
requirements. This literature review shows that no framework currently exists that gives a
comprehensive overview of all 88 Rural Development Programmes and their respective agrienvironment schemes, particularly those that are entry-level.
Introduction
There have been no systematic studies at EU level specifically of entry-level agrienvironment schemes, nor any attempt to provide a comprehensive typology to examine
the diversity of relationships between the reference level, basic agri-environment
requirements and payments for these schemes.
A typology is a conceptual framework used for analysis and policy development. At EU-27
scale there have been no typologies of agri-environment schemes. For example, the
evaluation of the agri-environment schemes under Regulations 2078/92 and 1257/99 for DG
Agriculture categorised agri-environment measures in different ways (Oréade Brèche,
2005), but only covers the EU-15 and pre-dates the focussing of Axis 2 measures on
Community environmental priorities. However, there have been recent attempts to devise
typologies which could help in targeting agri-environment schemes and evaluating their
impact, for example IEEP’s typology of potential HNV farming systems in Europe (IEEP, 2007)
and the new biophysical Agri-Environmental Zonation typology developed by the FARO-EU
study for use within the integrated assessment framework of SEAMLESS (Hazeu et al 2010).
118
At EU level, agri-environment schemes were first introduced under Article 19 of Council
Regulation (EEC/797/85) ‘on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures’. The
Regulation gave Member States the option of designating ‘environmentally sensitive areas’
where there was a need to support ‘farmers who undertake to farm environmentally
important areas so as to preserve or improve their environment’. As some Member States
chose to adopt Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) when they were first introduced as a
voluntary initiative some Member States have a more comprehensive history of agrienvironment schemes than others. For example, the UK had already set up the Broads
Grazing Marshes Conservation Scheme in 1985, and soon designated more than 40 ESAs,
whilst other Member States waited until the 1992 MacSharry reforms, when agrienvironment first became compulsory for all Member States. The importance of such
practices has become more prominent in recent CAP reforms, such as the Rural
Development Regulation and the two-pillar funding structure of the CAP which were
implemented in 1999, and were followed in the 2003 reforms with decoupled direct
payments dependent on the land being maintained in Good Agriculture and Environmental
Condition (GAEC). The incremental nature of these developments, in particular when the
agri-environment measure was first implemented in different Member States explains in
part why agri-environment schemes vary so widely across the EU-27. Agri-environment is
currently the rural development measure whose main objective is to encourage farmers to
introduce or continue applying agricultural production methods compatible with the
protection and improvement of the environment, landscape, natural resources, soil, and
genetic resources. It is a key element in the integration of environmental concerns into the
CAP.
The agri-environment measure is defined at EU level but Member States (and regions) are
expected to design the schemes and outline the management actions most fitting to their
territory, their specific needs but also reflecting the main priorities defined at the EU level.
Member States have taken a range of approaches to implementing the agri-environment
measure, reflecting amongst other factors political priorities, climatic variations,
vulnerability to drought or soil erosion, characteristic farming systems and practices,
habitats and features of farmland, perceived environmental risks and priorities, and sociocultural differences in attitudes to the environment and to the role of farmers.
The resulting diversity of agri-environment schemes tend to differ in:
 The relative level of resources devoted to entry-level agri-environment schemes;
 The scope and ambition of the schemes’ environmental objectives;
 The management required of farmers (for example, maintenance of habitats and
features, or enhancement, restoration and creation);
 Availability of the scheme - open to all farmers across the country/region or targeted
to particular areas, habitats or farm types;
 The environmental reference level, especially national/regional legislation and GAEC
standards;
 Eligibility rules, which include a competitive element in some Member States.
This literature review sets out to look at existing typologies and see whether any have been
developed that could facilitate the analysis and policy development of entry-level agri-
119
environment schemes across the EU-27 without overlooking the finer details particular to
each Member State and region.
Existing typologies
Agri-environment measures cover such a broad spectrum of management actions that a
typology intended to cover all actions in every one of the 88 Rural Development
Programmes (RDPs) is an enormous task (Tsakalou and Vlahos, 2008) and to date remains
unaccomplished. Several framework typologies have been used to analyse agri-environment
schemes and associated payments, but none so far has looked at farm management
practices in detail across the EU-27. There are five relevant studies, outlined below, that
have developed typologies to analyse agri-environment schemes, but all of these have
covered only a sub-sample of all 88 RDPs and not one has been specifically developed to
address entry-level schemes.
The most comprehensive coverage to date is the study by Oréade-Brèche (2005). It covers
all agri-environment schemes in all Member States in the EU-15 between 1992 and 2004.
The typology developed by Oréade-Brèche categorises each agri-environment scheme by its
environmental objective (table A1.1). Although this typology covers a broad scope of
Member States and their agri-environment schemes, it does not distinguish between
shallow and deep schemes or provide a detailed account of management actions within
each scheme. Table A1.1 summarises the typology developed in this report of approximately
20 types of agri-environment schemes linked to their respective environmental objectives.
This typology shows where environmental objectives overlap across schemes and can be
applied to any agri-environment scheme in the EU-15 to show what type of schemes are in
place and what purpose they are intended for.
Table A1.1: Types of agri-environment schemes in relation to environmental objectives
Environmental
Objective
Type of Agri-environment Scheme
Preservation of
biodiversity
Reduce inputs
Preservation of habitats
and areas of high
natural value
Preservation of
endangered species
Preservation of water
quality
Preserve habitats
agriculture land
on
Appropriate cultivation
(both in type of crop and
rotation)
Protect
remarkable
species
Protect endangered animals
Cover crops at critical
times of the year
Buffer strips
Buffer strips
Protect endangered plants
Reduce application of
chemical fertilisers (eg
liquid manure)
Reduce amounts within
water supply
Reduce application of
pesticides
Reduce application of
nitrogen near water
Reduce application of
pesticides near water
Reduce irrigated surface
area
Restrict draining systems
Protect soil quality
Manage soil erosion
Manage levels of organic
matter in soil
Preserve rural
landscape
Implement
crops and
meadows
Maintain perennial crops
(eg olive groves and
vineyards)
Maintain the quality of
soil
(prevent
acidification,
salinisation,
and
compression)
Create/maintain
permanent
landscape
features
Carry out agricultural
practices in keeping with
water management
Reduce inputs
Other
Maintain air quality
Maintain water quantity
rotational
maintain
Encourage
use
renewable energies
Source: Oréade-Brèche (2005). Own translation.
120
of
Manage forest fires
Maintain cultivation in
marginal areas and areas
at
risk
of
land
abandonment
Other
Another evaluation of agri-environment measures as applied across the EU-27, for the
Commission (European Commission, 2005), designed a typology to examine the relationship
at EU level between different agri-environment practices which are allowed under the
measure, and their environmental objectives (Table A1.2). The broad typology created in
this study was intended to be generic to give an overview of how agri-environment
measures have been designed from a top-down perspective. This typology does not have
the capacity to analyse agri-environment measures at a Member State level because it does
not account for the varying schemes and environmental objectives. It takes the
environmental objectives and basic types of schemes as they are outlined in the CAP and
uses this to generate a framework that can be applied to any Member State. This typology
works best as a guideline for how agri-environment measures are designed rather than as
an analytical tool.
Table A1.2: Agri-environment measures at an EU level
Type of Scheme
Input reduction:
Organic Farming:
Extensification of livestock:
Conversion of arable land to
grassland and rotation measures:
Undersowing and cover crops,
strips and preventing erosion and
fire:
Actions in areas of special
biodiversity/ nature interest:
Genetic diversity:
Maintenance
of
existing
sustainable and extensive systems:
Farmed landscape:
Water use reduction measures:
Source: EC (2005). Own table.
Environmental Objective
Water quality;
biodiversity; soil quality.
Soil quality; water quality;
biodiversity.
Water quality; soil quality;
biodiversity; landscape.
Water quality; water
quantity; soil quality;
biodiversity; landscape.
Water quality; soil quality;
biodiversity.
Biodiversity; secondary
effects on water quality
and quantity.
Genetic diversity;
secondary effect on
landscape.
Biodiversity; landscape;
water quality; soil quality.
Farmland biodiversity;
landscape.
Water quantity.
Another typology for agri-environment schemes was developed in a report for the AgriGrid
project, by Tsakalou and Vlahos (2008). This typology was created to look at the costs of
agri-environment measures in seven Member State countries and selected regions89. In
terms of designing an approach for gathering information, there are clear definitions of the
commitments, practices and baseline referred to in their later analysis. This ensures that
data was extracted in a consistent manner, irrespective of the lack of conformity among
RDPs. The typology established in AgriGrid is a logic framework that can be applied to any
89
Scotland, Germany, Greece, Finland, Italy, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Spain and Poland
121
given agri-environment measure (action) to analyse the cost of a management action. The
framework has been summarised below (table A1.3)90.
Table A1.3: Basic summary of Logic Framework for agri-environment measure costs
Step
Action
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Define the commitments;
Identify the relevant commitment practices;
Define the relevant baseline;
Select the relevant categories;
Identify the cost and revenue;
Calculate the cost and revenue;
Adjust the calculated payment to RDP limits;
Report the total calculated payments
Source: Tsakalou and Vlahos (2008)
In keeping with the typology developed by Oréade-Brèche, Notre Europe (Bonnieux et al,
2006) examined the scheme by environmental objectives for a selection of ten regions
within different Member States across the EU91. This typology can be applied at a scheme or
management action level to determine the most significant environmental pressures in a
region. The typology is not based on a broad range of regions and is not a useful tool for
determining management actions. This typology has been established from environmental
objectives to avoid the complexities of individual farm management actions across all 88
RDPs. It lists nine environmental objectives and applies them to the selected regions. Table
A1.4 shows how this typology can be applied and the type of results it can produce for
analysis. Of the three typologies discussed thus far, this is the most simple and as such,
produces the simplest analysis.
Table A1.4: Environmental Pressures (ranked by decreasing order)
Region
Flanders
Czech Republic
Brandenburg
Basse Normandie
Environmental Pressure (ranked by decreasing order)
1. Water pollution (nitrates and pesticides)
2. Intensive energy use (horticulture)
3. Acidification
4. Air pollution (greenhouse gases)
1. Biodiversity and landscape loss (land abandonment in mountainous
areas with a valuable environment)
2. Water pollution
3. Soil erosion (mountainous areas)
4.Flood (mountainous areas)
1. Biodiversity loss
2. Water Pollution
3. Soil erosion
1. Biodiversity and landscape loss (conversion of grassland, drainage
and abandonment of wetlands, destruction of hedgerows)
90 This is a very basic summary.
91
Flanders (Belgium), Brandenburg (Germany), Basse-normandie (France), Veneto and Emilia Romagna (Italy),
Freisland (the Netherlands), North-east England (the UK), Finland, Ireland and the Czech Republic
122
Ireland
Veneto
Emilia Romagna
Friesland
Finland
North
England
East
2. Water pollution (nitrates)
3. Soil erosion
4. Flood (sea tides, urbanisation)
1. Water pollution (nitrates and sediments)
2. Biodiversity loss
3. Air pollution (greenhouse gases and ammonia concentration)
4. Soil erosion (over grazing on hillsides)
1. Water pollution (nitrates in lowlands)
2. Biodiversity and landscape loss (conversion of grassland, drainage
of wetlands, destruction of hedgerows)
3. Soil erosion (mountainous areas)
4. Flood (mountainous areas)
1. Water pollution (nitrates)
2. Food and environmental contamination (pesticides)
3. Biodiversity and landscape loss (destruction of hedgerows and tree
rows)
4. Flood
5. Soil erosion (uplands and hills)
6. Air pollution (greenhouse gases)
1. Water pollution (nitrates)
2. Biodiversity and landscape loss
1. Water pollution (nitrates and phosphorus)
2. Biodiversity and landscape loss (land abandonment ain the north
and intensification in the east and south)
1. Water pollution
2. Biodiversity and landscape loss
3. Threat to historic features
4. Soil erosion
Source: Bonnieux et al, 2006.
The Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI) developed a typology to examine the
environmental impact of agri-environment schemes (AFI, 2007). The typology is a
conceptual framework and is similar to that developed for AgriGrid in that it is a ‘step-wise
process’ and is based on Multi-Criteria Analysis. It is designed to collate data from agrienvironment indicators in a ranking order based on stakeholder participation (Purvis et al,
2009). This framework allows the monitoring of the environmental impact of agrienvironment schemes to be analysed. Of the four typologies discussed, it is the more
complex and as such the analysis is more detailed. In theory, this typology could be applied
to all Member States and at any scale, however, there were only 14 case studies (two from
each participating country in the project: the UK, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Germany,
Greece and Finland) and the results presented are at a farm-scale, for example in the UK,
the case studies focussed on Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) in the Upper Thames
Tributaries (a pastoral landscape, Oxford) and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in
Chilterns (woodlands and chalk hills).
123
ANNEX 2 - THE TYPES AND CATEGORIES OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS USED IN THIS STUDY
This Annex lists and briefly describes the 63 different types of entry-level management
actions used in the typology and the analysis. A brief description of each type of action is
given alongside an example of how these are specified within an RDP. Where individual
examples have been quoted in Chapter 3 more detail has been given including the other
actions that they are associated with when found in packages. The management actions are
presented in the order that they are found in the typology.
1.1 The management of grass and semi-natural forage
This category of 14 different types of actions is aimed at the management of permanent
pasture and semi-natural forage areas, grass leys within arable rotations and grass beneath
or between permanent crops.
1.1.1 Maintain permanent pasture
This action describes the requirement to maintain existing areas of permanent pasture
within a holding. Example: Poland - farmers are required to maintaining permanent pasture
and all traditional features on their farms.
1.1.2 Traditional management (grass)
This action describes the requirement to maintain different types of traditional
management and can refer to a variety of different practices which vary by RDP. Example:
Bolzano (Italy) - farmers are required to carry out the care and maintenance of pastures
according to traditional methods (which are not specified).
1.1.3 Grazing regime
This action describes the range of different requirements and limitations on the
management of livestock and the vegetation on which they graze. These actions principally
include limits to stocking densities and the dates at which livestock are allowed to graze.
Specific examples of grazing regimes used in this study
 Reducing the negative impacts of agriculture on the environment – crop rotation in
Slovenia: This comprehensive package of actions requires farmers to maintain a
livestock density of no more than 1.9LU/ha in part to ensure no excess manure is
produced. Other requirements of this package include education and training for the
farmer, the keeping of records, and inclusion of legumes in crop rotations alongside,
limits to nitrogen fertiliser application to a maximum of 170kg per hectare per year.
 Conservation of natural resources, biodiversity, soil fertility and traditional cultural
landscape in mountain pastures in Slovenia: Here the farmer must maintain
livestock densities between a minimum of 0.5 and maximum of 1.9LU/ha. Other
actions required of the farmer include the keeping of records, training, no use of
sewage sludge or residue from farms, PPPs or fertilisers.
 Basic commitments for the sustainable management of dehesas in Andalucía,
Spain: In this package farmers are required to maintain livestock densities between a
minimum of 0.1 and maximum of 1LU/ha. This grazing regime is part of a wider
package that also requires a management plan, records to be kept, scrub
124


management and compliance with a ban on the use of PPP. At the end of the grazing
season farmers must also ensure than scrub and weeds are cleared by hand.
The management of manure fertilised pastures in Hamburg, Germany: This package
of actions, aimed at certain types of pastures, allows the farmer to graze up to a
maximum of 2.5LU/ha between July and November. Requirements of this package
centre largely on the dates at which certain operations can take place, for example
the cutting and grazing of grassland can only take place between 1 July and 15
November. Additional date specific requirements include limits to fertiliser
application and tillage regimes.
The management of pastures in the Czech Republic: Requirements on grazing are
specified in this package but only where it is appropriate to use grazing animals and
to ensure stock are well managed. There is some inference of limits to grazing
densities but these are associated with the requirement to limit the use of fertiliser
applications (maximum 80kg nitrogen per hectare per year) and grazing animals.
1.1.4 Restrictions on peat cutting
This action describes the restrictions on the removal of peat for the use as a traditional fuel
source. Example: Northern Ireland (UK) - farmers are limited to 0.1ha of peat cutting for
domestic use only. Mechanised peat cutting is not permitted.
1.1.5 No grazing
This action describes management actions that exclude livestock grazing from certain areas
of land. Example: Saarland (Germany) - in managing species-rich permanent grassland
farmers are required to not carry out any grazing (except in special circumstances agreed
with authorities).
1.1.6 No machinery
This action describes the exclusion of machinery from certain areas of land or for certain
practices. Example: Romania – On certain types of grassland farmers are not permitted to
carry out any operations with mechanical equipment, except that powered by animals.
1.1.7 Scrub or invasive species control
This action describes the management of scrub vegetation (usually woody species) as well
as preventing the spread of some invasive species (usually non woody). Example: Finland farmers must prevent the growth of trees and bushes on certain grassland areas.
1.1.8 Control of burning
This action prevents or restricts the time and way in which vegetation can be managed
through burning. Example: Slovenia - in certain grassland areas farmers are prohibited from
burning vegetation except for the removal of woody residues.
1.1.9 Restricted management dates (grass)
This action describes practices that restrict the periods and times of year over which certain
management actions can take place on grassland. This is often required to protect wildlife
during the breeding season Example: Madrid (Spain) – The farmer is not permitted to carry
out any work during the breeding season of protected birds (dates are not specified).
125
1.1.10 Shepherding
This action describes the use of a shepherd to control livestock grazing in certain grassland
areas. Example: Austria - in addition to other types of management actions on alpine
pastures farmers are required to ensure a shepherd is present to manage livestock.
1.1.11 Hay making
This action describes the requirement to carry out haymaking in meadows and grassed
areas. Example: UK (England) - farmers are paid a supplement to make hay in upland areas.
1.1.12 No Cutting
This action describes where farmers are prevented from carrying out any mowing or cutting
of grass or vegetation. Example: Piedmont (Italy) - farmers are required not to carry out any
mowing on extensive grazing areas.
1.1.13 Cutting regime
This action describes the requirement to carry out mowing or cutting either for a specified
number of times or in a specific way (for example mowing from the centre to the edge of a
field).
Examples of cutting regimes used in this study
 The management of meadows in the Czech Republic: In this package of actions no
grazing requirements or restrictions are specified and the farmer is required instead
to mow the meadows at least twice a year, remove cut material from the site, and
not to mulch in Special Protection Areas (SPA).
1.1.14 Specified grass or seeding regime
This action describes the requirements to sow certain seed varieties. Examples: Ireland farmers are required to incorporate clover into 25 per cent or 5 hectares, whichever is the
lesser, of the grassland swards of the farm.
1.2 Input management
This group of actions describes the different approaches to limiting the use of inputs within
a range of farming systems. These can include fertilisers, plant protection products (PPPs),
growth regulators, and lime. Seven types of actions are included in this category.
1.2.1 No fertiliser application
This action describes where farmers are prohibited from using fertilisers on certain areas of
their holding.
Examples of no fertiliser requirements used in this study
 Reduced Inputs as a part of general management in Luxembourg: Requires farmers
to not use any fertiliser in certain areas, restrictions on the use of organic fertiliser,
manure, sludge and compost as well as the analysis of soil nutrient content (every
three years) and the keeping of records. It also stipulates that a farmer cannot
purchase nitrogen from outside their farm if their own farm produces over 130 kg/ha
a year of nitrogen. Other requirements of this package include the maintenance of
126

landscape features, maximum livestock density of 2 LU/ha, restricted management
dates, and a 3 m buffer strip along riparian edges.
No inputs on arable land in Austria: Under this package of actions the farmer is
required not to use any herbicides or fertilisers with the exception of those listed in
Annex II of Regulation 2092/91, including sewage sludge and sewage sludge
compost. Seed inoculation is permitted. In this package farmers must also comply
with a specific harvesting regime and take part in another package of actions
(environmentally friendly management of arable land and grassland).
1.2.2 Limits to fertiliser application or specified regimes
This action describes where farmers are allowed to apply fertilisers to their holding but in
doing so must comply with a minimum or maximum range (or both).
Examples of input management used in this study
 The protection of endangered birds outside Natura 2000 areas in Poland: In this
package aimed at grassland areas farmers are required to carry out a comprehensive
range of management actions from no tillage between 1 April and 1 September,
keeping records of operations carried out on the holding, maintaining permanent
pasture and landscape features, to cutting and grazing regimes compatible with bird
protection. In terms of reduced inputs, the farmer must refrain from using PPP,
sewage and sewage sludge as well as comply with the limits set out for fertiliser
applications.
 The improvement of soil quality through organic manure in Puglia, Italy: This
package is specifically designed to address organic matter content in soils. The
farmer can apply fertiliser but is limited to a maximum of 250kg per ha per year of
nitrogen in areas not vulnerable to nitrates, and 170kg per ha per year of nitrogen in
those that are. The farmer must also document the soil organic matter content.
 Traditional farming in mountain areas in Bolzano, Italy: Here the farmer must
adhere to an upper limit of fertiliser application of 30kg per ha per year of nitrogen.
In addition, this small package of actions prohibits the use of pesticides and
fertilisers, and requires keeping records of the species and variety of crops grown,
previous crop, the crop cultivation, fertilisation, crop type and date of harvest.
1.2.3 No PPPs
This action describes where farmers are prohibited from using plant protection products
(PPPs) on certain areas of their holding.
Example of input management used in this study
 The protection of biodiversity and cultural values in pastures with general values
(soil type 1) in Sweden: Includes a ban on the use of pesticides, fertilisers and lime in
combination with limits to grazing intensity, the control of scrub, implementation of
a management plan and a ban on irrigation.
1.2.4 Limits to PPPs or specified regimes
This action describes where farmers are allowed to use PPPs on their holding but these are
limited in application and scope. Quantities are rarely specified.
127
Example of limits to PPP application used in this study
Protection of traditional olive groves in Greece: farmers are permitted only to apply
herbicides manually on permanent crops. This package does not specify the quantity of
herbicide only the manner in which it may be applied. The farmer must also refrain from
severe pruning and is prohibited from using machinery.
1.2.5 No lime application
This action describes where farmers are prohibited from using lime on certain areas of land.
Example: Sweden – on certain types of pasture farmers are prohibited from applying lime.
1.2.6 Limits to lime or appropriate regime
This action describes where farmers are allowed to use lime on their holding but the
application is limited. Example: England (UK) - for the management of upland grassland for
birds farmers are allowed to continue to use lime on their land where this is normal practice
but not between 1 April and 1 August.
1.2.7 No growth regulators
This action describes where farmers are prohibited from using growth regulators on their
crops. Example: Estonia – on arable land in Estonia, as an optional requirement of a package
aimed at environmentally friendly farming, farmers are not allowed to use growth
regulators.
1.3 Management plans and record keeping
This category describes five types actions required of the farmer that involve activities away
from the land concerned, such as management plans, record keeping and analysis.
1.3.1 Management plan - general
This action descries the requirements to set out a plan of operation for the holding or farm
area outlining the environmental management to be implemented. Example: Lazio (Italy) –
the farmer is required to commission an action plan, prepared by a qualified professional
that should record the type, manner and timing of implementation of interventions. The
plan should also include the identification of land parcels where different types of
operations will be carried out.
1.3.2 Management plan – grazing
This action descries the requirements to set out a plan of operation for the holding or farm
outlining that specifically relates to the use of grazing animals. Example: Abruzzo - farmers
are required to establish a five-year grazing plan to encourage the renewal of grassland
areas.
1.3.3 Management plan - input
This action describes where a farmer is required to set out a plan of operations for the
holding or farm detailing the amount of inputs (fertilisers) to be used on the holding.
Example: Bulgaria – farmers are required to prepare and implement a five year nutrient
(input) management plan with support of an advisor or qualified agronomist).
1.3.4 Record Keeping
128
This action describes the requirements on farmers to maintain records of different types of
actions undertaken on the farm. These often relate to fertilisation rates but also livestock
management, or all actions on a holding. Example: Belgium (Flanders) - in relation to actions
to help promote the reduction in use of pesticides the farmer is required to keep records of
crop production including sowing or planting date for crops, progeny, anticipated harvest
date and the method of weed control (mechanical and date).
1.3.5 Analysis
This action describes the requirement on farmers to take soil samples and carry out analysis
to determine the appropriate level of nutrients required for fertilisation. This action usually
precedes the implementation of an input management plan. Example: Bulgaria – to help in
the protection of soil and water the farmer is required to take soil samples for analysis of
nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (with support of an advisor). This is carried out prior
to the implementation of a five-year nutrient management plan.
1.4 Soil cover
This group of actions describes the different types of ‘cover’ required to limit the exposure
of bare soils to erosion and run-off particularly during seasons when these events are more
frequent. In addition some crop covers are used to provide forage and habitat for different
fauna. Four types of action are found in this category.
1.4.1 Grass cover in permanent crops
This action describes the requirement to maintain grass cover under and between
permanent crops at certain times of the year. Example: Austria - green cover must be
maintained throughout the year on paths between fruit growing land.
1.4.2 Green or vegetated cover
This action describes the requirement to maintain a green cover crop on arable land, usually
over winter.
Examples of green or vegetated cover used in this study
 Plant cover to prevent the leaching of nutrients from soil to water in permanent
crops in Umbria, Italy: Here the farmer is required to implement a green manure
crop within 20 days of harvesting the main crop and this must be maintained until 30
April the following year. The requirements include limits to PPPs, restricted tillage
depth (25 cm), and the establishment of a management plan.
 Winter intercrop in areas threatened by water erosion on arable land in Poland:
Here farmers are required to plant and maintain a cover crop over the winter period
than must not be ploughed in before 1 March of the following year.
1.4.3 Over winter stubbles
This action describes the requirement to maintain stubbles on arable land, usually over
winter (as opposed to being ploughed in immediately following harvest).
Example of over winter stubbles used in this study
 Maintaining stubble in fields in Lithuania: This package, aimed entirely at stubble
management, requires the farmer to maintain stubbles on harvested fields over
129
winter. Straw can be baled or shredded and spread over the surface and light
cultivation can be used to prevent weed build up, but only until 30 September. No
fertilisers or PPPs can be applied after harvesting whilst the stubble is present. No
ploughing-in dates are given.
1.4.4 Mulching regime
This action describes the requirement to mulch vegetation and leave it as a soil cover at
certain times of year.
Examples of mulching regime used in this study
 Conservation farming practices in Campania, Italy: the farmer is required to
maintain mulch on the soil as an alternative to vegetative (live) cover all year round.
Cover must be established no later than 30 October and can be ploughed only after
30 March.
1.5 Soil management
This category of five actions is aimed specifically at the management and protection of soil
under arable, grassland and permanent crop systems.
1.5.1 Erosion prevention strips
This action describes where farmers are required to create vegetated (usually grass) strips
in-field for the purposes of preventing soil erosion and run off. Like run-off furrows (see
below) these are most commonly required on sloping ground and are oriented
perpendicular to the slope. Example: Sicily (Italy) – on arable land with a slope steeper than
five per cent, farmers are required to create strips of land at least 5 m in width that are
uncultivated, with permanent grass cover. These are used as an alternative to run-off
furrows.
1.5.2 No tillage
This action describes where farmers are prohibited from carrying out any tillage (ploughing
etc.) operations on certain areas of land.
Examples of no tillage used in this study
 Protection of birds outside Natura 2000 sites in Poland: farmers are prohibited from
ploughing, rolling, under-sowing, or levelling between 1 April and 1 September. This
wide package of actions also includes a ban on application of PPPs and sewage or
sewage sludge, the maintenance of permanent pasture and landscape features,
cutting and grazing regimes.
 Erosion management through no tillage in Flanders, Belgium: farmers are required
to not carry out any tillage for a period of five to seven consecutive years on areas of
the holding which are prone to erosion.
1.5.3 Tillage regime
This action describes where farmers are required to carry out tillage (ploughing etc.) in line
with certain requirements which commonly include the orientation (in relation to the slope
of the land) or depth of tillage.
130
Examples of different tillage regimes used in this study
 Agricultural soil conservation, erosion control in Murcia, Spain: In this package the
farmer is prohibited from carrying out tillage in the direction of the slope
irrespective of the incline. Other actions required in this package include riparian
buffer strips and erosion prevention strips.
 Reduced tillage depth on archaeological features in England: Farmers are required
to carry out reduced depth and non-inversion tillage (minimum tillage) to a
maximum depth of 10cm. Farmers are also required not to sub-soil or mole plough.
These actions do not necessarily cover the whole holding and can be limited to fields
or areas containing archaeological features.
1.5.4 Runoff furrows
This action describes where farmers are required to create furrows or channels to prevent
water running directly down sloping land and thus helping to prevent soil erosion. Example:
Bulgaria - in order to help prevent soil erosion farmers are required to create run-off
furrows arranged perpendicularly (and with a little inclination) to the slope with a distance
between furrows of between 20 and 40 metres.
1.5.5 Ploughing-in of crop
This action describes the burying of crop residues to improve soil quality after they have
been harvested or after the harvested stalks or cover has been left over winter.
1.6 Buffer strips
This category of actions describes the two types of action used to buffer features from the
effect of damaging agricultural practices such as ploughing, the spraying of inputs (PPP,
fertilisers) on adjacent habitats and features. Two actions are covered in this category.
1.6.1 Non-riparian buffer strips
This action describes the requirement on farmers to create or maintain a strip of land at the
edge of a field providing a buffer to adjacent habitats or features such as hedgerows.
Examples of non-riparian buffer strips used in this study
 Buffer strips package in Wallonia, Belgium: This package devoted entirely to buffer
strips requires the farmer to create buffer strips on their holding, in line with local
constraints but between three and 21 metres wide. These must replace land that
was under cultivation, have no fertiliser of PPP application, and cannot be mown.
 Entry-level actions on viticulture in Greece: This package, containing only two
actions, requires farmers to have a minimum of 0.5m wide buffer strips and to carry
out weeding through mechanical or manual means.
1.6.2 Riparian buffer strips
This action describes the requirement on farmers to create or maintain a strip of land at the
edge of a field providing a buffer to adjacent aquatic features such as natural watercourses
or ditches.
Examples of riparian buffer strips used in this study
131



Protection of areas sensitive to nitrates in Greece: This package, aimed at
protecting water from nitrates, requires farmers to have buffer strips on at least five
per cent of their holding. Other requirements include taking 25 per cent of
potentially irrigable land out of production, reducing fertiliser input by 30 per cent,
and putting 20 per cent of the irrigable area into rotation every five years.
Creation of border strips in Denmark: This package, exclusively aimed at the
creation of buffer strips, requires farmers to create strips 10m to 20m wide
immediately adjacent to lakes and watercourses. These can be cut back at least once
a year but other than that have no further management requirement.
Environmentally friendly management in Estonia: as part of this wider package of
actions farmers are required to maintaining a buffer strip of between two and five
metres. Other actions in the package include crop rotations, green cover, specified
seed varieties, the production of a management plan and keeping of records.
1.7 Crop Management
This category describes the different actions used to manage both arable and permanent
crops. Twelve types of action are included in this category.
1.7.1 Fallow
This action describes where farmers are required to include fallow as part of their standard
crop rotations. Example: Cyprus - farmers are required as part of their rotations, to maintain
one year of cereal and one year of fallow or leguminous crops.
1.7.2 Traditional management (crop)
This action describes the requirement to maintain different types of traditional
management and can refer to a variety of different practices for example different ways of
harvesting. Example: Scotland (UK) – farmers are required to gather their cereal crop using
a ‘binder’ and the ‘stooks’ (groups of sheaves) are to be gathered into stacks.
1.7.3 Rotation with legumes
This action describes where farmers are required to have leguminous (nitrogen fixing) crops
as part of their crop rotation. Example: See below – Examples of crop rotations used in this
study.
1.7.4 Rotation
This action describes where farmers are required to have a certain number or types of crop
in rotation.
Examples of crop rotations used in this study
 Arable production package in Portugal: As part of a package of actions aimed at
arable production farmers are required to have a minimum of two crops in rotation
over a five year period with exceptions granted for rice, floodplains, or terraced
areas. The package does not specify the type of crops to be included in rotations but
a separate action requires that the percentage of legume crops must not decrease.
Farmers are also required to maintain landscape features alongside water courses,
allow wildlife access to water between 1 May and 30 November, prohibit the use of
132





sewage sludge or animal manure (except from natural grazing), and ensure soil cover
from 1 November to 1 March.
Species-rich crop rotation in agriculture and horticulture in Thüringen, Germany:
This package is focussed specifically on crop rotations and requires the farmer to
maintain a minimum of six different crop types in rotation each with at least 10 per
cent share of the arable area of the holding. The cereal content of the holding can
not exceed two thirds of the overall crop share.
Diverse crop rotations in Bavaria, Germany: This package is focussed entirely on
crop rotations and again includes only two actions, crop rotations and rotation with
legumes. The farmer is required to grow at least five different crops in rotation, with
cereal crops not exceeding two thirds of the overall share and with legumes to cover
at least five per cent of rotated crops.
Water-friendly agricultural use along waterways and sensitive areas in Bavaria,
Germany: This separate package of actions in Bavaria is focussed on water quality
objectives although the only actions included are for crop rotations. Here the farmer
is required to exclude intensive crops from rotations and to not allow the same crop
to be grown in succession other than animal fodder crops.
Rotations in potato cultivation in Cyprus: The farmer is required to maintain a three
crop rotation for the cultivation of potatoes maintain one year of fallow, and use
green manure over winter.
The management of agricultural systems of particular interest to populations of
steppe birds in Andalucía, Spain: In this package farmers are required to maintain
legumes on at least 10 per cent of the holding, however this is only part of a much
wider set of requirements aimed more specifically at bird management. These
require a management plan, the keeping of records, harvesting restrictions until 30
June and to certain heights (minimum 25 cm), the maintenance of stubbles until 31
August, no irrigation, over winter stubble, strips, patches and infield fallow patches
for birds.
1.7.5 Maintenance of traditional orchards
This describes where farmers are required to maintain traditional (fruit) orchards present on
their holding through on-going management. Example: Hungary – farmers are required to
maintain traditional apple orchards. These orchards are defined as a plantation which is
composed of homogenous or mixed fruit trees with a density of at least 30 trees/ha and a
maximum of 80 trees/ha.
1.7.6 Spring sown cereals
This action describes where farmers are required to sow cereal crops in the spring as
opposed to the autumn or winter of the previous year. This usually follows the maintenance
of stubble or soil cover over the winter period. Example: Ireland – farmers are required to
plant a spring cereal crop on a minimum percentage of the holding with the added
requirement that the crop cannot be harvested as whole crop silage.
1.7.7 Restricted management dates (crop)
This action describes practices that restrict the periods and times of year over which certain
management actions can take place on arable land. Example: Andalucía (Spain) - in order
133
help protect certain bird species farmers are required to delay the harvest of cereal crops
until 30 June.
1.7.8 No burning of straw, stubble or cut residue
This action prohibits the burning of cut residue, straw or stubble usually following harvest.
Example: Ireland – when producing arable crops farmers are prohibited from burning straw
or straw stubbles.
1.7.9 Pruning regime
This action describes the removal of shoots and dead vegetation from permanent crops.
Example: Greece – farmers must avoid the severe pruning and decapitation of trees in
traditional olive groves.
1.7.10 Specified crop varieties and/or seeding regime
This action describes where a farmer is required to plant certain varieties of crops or use
certain seeding rate or method. This type of action is different from where farmers are
required to plant certain types of crops as part of a rotation. Examples: Estonia – farmers
are required to plant at least 15 per cent of the cultivated area (including at least 10 per
cent under cereals) with a certified seed. Niedersachsen and Bremen (Germany) – farmers
are required to sow oil seed rape before winter cereals at a seeding rate of 10-12kg/ha.
1.7.11 Restricted management times
This action describes the restriction to the specific times of day over which certain
management actions can take place. Example: Spain (Catalunya) – farmers are not
permitted to carry out agricultural work at night.
1.7.10 Harvesting regime
This action describes the requirement to carry out harvesting in a specific way (for example
limiting the cutting height for certain crops). Example: Extremadura (Spain) - in order to
protect nesting bird species the farmer must raise the cutting height at the time of harvest
to a minimum of 25cm.
1.8 Landscape feature management
This category of actions describes the different types of landscape and structural features
that are maintained or managed through entry-level actions. Two actions are covered in this
category.
1.8.1 Management of water features
This type of action describes the management of aquatic landscape features such as ponds,
streams, and ditches. Example: England – farmers are required to maintain existing ditches
at the edges of fields. For more details of how landscape feature management is included in
packages of actions please see below.
1.8.2 Management of non-aquatic features
This action describes the management of non-aquatic landscape features such as
hedgerows, individual trees and stonewalls. Example: Ireland – farmers are required to
maintain farm and field boundaries in accordance with a specific annual programme of
134
work. This maintenance will extend to 140 metres of hedgerow per hectare, subject to an
overall maximum of 5,600 metres per farm. In the case of stonewall maintenance it will
extend to 70 metres per hectare, with an overall maximum of 2,800 metres. For more
details of how landscape feature management is included in packages of actions please see
below.
Examples of where landscape feature management is the entire focus of a package of
actions:
 Landscape feature management in Wallonia, Belgium: There are three separate
packages of actions, each focussed on a different type of landscape feature. Package
a) is focussed on hedgerows, package b) on trees, shrubs, and groves, and package c)
on ponds. Each package commands a different payment rate and has a different set
of requirements. For example, for hedgerow management farmers must declare and
maintain all hedgerows, these must be composed of native species, be a minimum of
20 metres in length and maximum 10 metres in width, no fertilisers or PPPs may be
used, and no maintenance carried out between 15 April and 1 July.
 Management of landscape structural elements in Lithuania: Under the ‘Landscape
Stewardship Scheme’ one package is focussed entirely on the maintenance of
structural landscape elements. This package is primarily aimed at the management
of hedgerows and requires farmers to trim the hedges at least twice during the year,
but not during the bird-breeding season (1 March to 31 July).
Examples of landscape feature management as part of a wider package of actions
 Environmentally friendly management of grassland in Austria: Farmers are required
to carry out a range of actions within this package including limiting both fertiliser
inputs (maximum 150kg nitrogen/ha) and livestock density (maximum 2LU/ha),
complying with a cutting regime and keeping records, as well as the maintenance
and management of landscape features.
 Maintaining extensive Karst pastures in Slovenia: Farmers are required to carry out
a wide range of actions including (but not limited to) training, limiting livestock
density between a minimum of 0.2LU/ha and a maximum of 1.9LU/ha, observing
restrictions on management dates, no tillage, and limiting fertiliser application (no
nitrogen fertilisers). As part of the package existing hedges must be maintained
including pruning and thinning every other year but not between 1 March and 30
September.
1.9 Management for wildlife
This group of actions describes the areas within or adjacent to a crop or field of grass which
are maintained solely for the purpose of providing forage, breeding, and nesting sites for
different species.
1.9.1 Strips or patches for wildlife
This action describes the creation of areas for wildlife. These are usually found at the edge
of arable fields but can include areas that protrude into the crop or where field corners are
taken out of management.
Examples of strips or patches for wildlife used in this study
135




Environmentally friendly management of arable land in Austria: Requires farmers
to maintain flowering strips on at least two per cent of the arable area. This
requirement is included within a wider package of actions which include limit to
fertiliser application of 150kg N/ha, specified crop rotations, the keeping of records
for farm operations and fertiliser application, maintenance of landscape elements,
and cutting regimes on grass leys.
Nectar flower strips under entry-level stewardship in England: Here farmers are
required to sow nectar rich flower mixes, in blocks and/or strips at least 6m wide at
the edges of fields, in early spring or late summer. On-going management of these
strips requires restrictions on the use of fertilisers and PPPs, and grazing, as well as
detailed cutting regimes (requirement to cut down to 10cm) between set dates of 15
September and 31 October.
The protection of farmland birds using mixed grass strips in Flanders, Belgium:
Here the farmer is required to sow a strip with a mixture of perennial grasses up to a
maximum of 30m wide (minimum six metres) to create habitat for birds. On-going
management of these strips places restrictions on the use of fertilisers and PPPs, as
well as requiring detailed cutting regimes within set dates.
Blühflächen or flowering plant strips in Mecklenburg Vorpommern, Germany: In
this package of actions, aimed specifically at creating and maintaining flowering
strips, the farmer is required to create a strip at least 10m wide (so that it can be
checked using remote sensing), with no fertiliser. Farmers should also agree to the
use of such strips by local beekeepers.
1.9.2 In-field fallow patch for wildlife
This action describes the creation of unsown plots or areas within a crop (or grass plot)
aimed at providing nesting and forage areas for birds (eg skylarks).
Example of in field fallow patches used in this study
 Skylark plots under entry-level stewardship in England: Here farmers are required,
in fields more than five hectares in area, to create plots within the crop at least three
metres wide with a minimum area of 16m2, at least 50m into the field and at a
density of two plots per hectare. These plots can be created either by turning off the
drill during sowing to leave an unsown plot, or by sowing the crop as normal and
spraying out the plots by 31 December with an appropriate herbicide. There is no
obligation to manage plots differently to the remainder of the field (they can be over
sprayed and can be fertilised) but they cannot be weeded using mechanical means.
1.9.3 Sacrificial food crops for wildlife
This action describes where a farmer is required to leave part of the crop unharvested so as
to provide food for wildlife. Example: Italy (Piedmont) - the beneficiary must leave the crop
on the plot as food for wildlife, and apply no PPPs to the soil.
1.10 Water level management
This category describes one action concerned with the management of water levels within a
field or parcel. This can refer to maintaining drainage systems to limit water build up on land
or the converse where water levels are maintained on wetland habitats. Example: Bulgaria for the maintenance of HNV grasslands no new drainage or ploughing is permitted.
136
1.11 Non chemical crop protection
This category describes three actions that aim to reduce the chemical input to agricultural
systems through the use of alternative methods of control.
1.11.1 Mechanical or manual weed control
This action describes the control of weeds or unwanted vegetation manually (for example
hand cutting or pulling) or mechanically (for example machine pulling of weeds). Example:
Greece - manual weed control in vineyards.
1.11.2 Mechanical pest control
This action describes the use of a system of traps to control pests. Example: Spain
(Catalunya) - the beneficiary must implement a system of traps to control pests in vineyards.
1.11.3 Biological pest control
This action describes the use of either pheromones or other species to control pest species.
Example: Bavaria (Germany) – farmers are required to use predatory mites in place of
fungicides under a package of actions that prohibits the use of PPPs.
1.12 Land out of production
This category contains two actions that require land to either be taken or maintained out of
production.
1.12.1 Taking land out of production
This action describes where farmers are required to take areas of currently farmed land out
of the productive cycle for more than one year.
Examples of taking land out of production used in this study
 Protection against erosion in fruit and hop growing areas in Austria: In order to
enhance soil functionality land can be taken out of production for a maximum of
three years; vines must be removed and green cover maintained all year.
 Protection of water systems in Greece: farmers are required to take out of
production a minimum of 25 per cent of potentially irrigated land with no
agricultural practice allowed for five years. On other areas farmers must establish
crop rotations on a minimum of 20 per cent of the holding and buffer strops on five
per cent.
 Maintenance of habitats in Bulgarian arable lands of important bird areas: This
package is designed to support protected bird species in Bulgaria as part of the High
Nature Value (HNV) farming package. It requires a contiguous area between 10 and
20 per cent of the overall holding (minimum one hectare) of arable land to be left
uncultivated for a period of two to five years. The area of unfarmed land must be
rotated. The farmer must maintain a buffer strip at least one metre in width that can
be ploughed two to three times a year (but not between March and July) to prevent
spread of weeds into adjacent crops.
1.12.2 Examples of maintaining areas of land out of production
137
This action describes where farmers are required to maintain existing areas of land that are
currently not in production for more than one year.
Examples of maintaining areas of land out of production used in this study
 Retaining wildlife areas in Ireland: Farmers are required to nominate a minimum of
three per cent of the farm (grassland farms) or two per cent of the farm (arable
farms) for wildlife habitat. This compulsory action is supported by additional optional
actions (paid for separately) including the creation of strips or patches for wildlife
(which include the prohibition of fertilisers and PPPs) as well as higher-level actions
including tree planting and habitat creation.
1.13 Apiculture
This category, and the one action it contains, describes all the different activities associated
with bee keeping (apiculture). Example: Castile y Leon – under a package of actions called
‘bee keeping to improve biodiversity’ farmers the range of requirements include identifying
all hives used on their holding, maintain a hive density of no more than one every two
hectares, have more than 80 colonies on the holding and applying integrated management
for pests such as Varroa mite.
1.14 Irrigation Management
This category describes where farmers are required to carry out more appropriate
management of water in agricultural systems through irrigation practices. Two types of
actions are included in this category.
1.14.1 Irrigation management
This action refers to the management of irrigation practices. Example: Portugal – farmers
are required to carry out careful water management on irrigated crops.
1.14.2 No irrigation
This action refers to the prohibition of irrigation. Example: Sweden – to protect the soil’s
natural values farmers are not allowed to carry out any irrigation.
1.15 Training
This category includes only one type of action and refers to where farmers are required to
undertake training as part of their agri-environment agreement.
Examples of training used in the main report
 Training required for farmers undertaking environmental management in Slovenia:
In the Slovenian RDP, all 14 packages of actions recorded in this study require the
farmer to undertake training. For example Conservation of natural resources,
biodiversity, soil fertility and traditional cultural landscape – mowing steep
pastures in Slovenia: This package of actions requires the farmer, for the duration of
their contract, to carry out an educational programme of not less than four hours
per year, following which they should receive a certificate confirming the education
and the number of hours undertaken. Other actions within this package include the
keeping of records for all actions (not just fertilisers and PPPs); refraining from using
sewage sludge and farm residues or producing excess livestock manure; complying
138


with a maximum livestock density of 1.9LU/ha; cutting grass at least once per year
using specific machinery or by hand; and ensuring that nitrogen fertiliser application
does not exceed 170kg per hectare per year.
Compulsory training in Ireland: As a compulsory requirement farmers must
undertake training in environmentally friendly farming practices so that they can
acquire the knowledge and skills to comply with the core requirements of the Ireland
agri-environment scheme. Participants must attend a formal training course
provided with Axis 1 support before the end of the second year of their agrienvironment contract. This compulsory action is one of 12 compulsory actions and
packages of actions within the scheme, including buffer strips, management plans
and limits to fertilisers and PPPs.
Training for farmers of fruit nurseries in Luxembourg: farmers are required to
undertake training for the first three years of their agreement of a minimum of 10
hours (five two hour classes). In addition to this they must maintain structural
elements (landscape features), limit fertiliser application and keep records of its use,
analyse soil nutrient content (except nitrogen) and maintain perennial green cover
between permanent crops.
139
ANNEX 3 - THE BIO-GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES OF THE EU-27
To help with an understanding of the bio-geographical variation of the 88 RDPs this annex
lists in Member State alphabetical order the 88 RDPs of the EU including their broad biogeographical region (Table A3.1), the source of this information (Figure A3.1), as well as
providing a more detailed description of the seven outer most regions (Box A3.1).
Table A3.1: Member States and regions and their associated bioclimatic zones
Country
EU Code
Region
MS Group
Austria
AT
-
EU-15
Broad Bio-climatic
Region
Alpine
Belgium
Be (Fl)
Flanders
EU-15
Atlantic
Belgium
BE (WA)
Wallonia
EU-15
Continental
Bulgaria
BG
-
EU-12
Continental
Cyprus
CY
-
EU-12
Mediterranean
Czech Republic
CZ
-
EU-12
Continental
Denmark
DK
-
EU-15
Continental
Estonia
EE
-
EU-12
Boreal
Finland
FI
Mainland
EU-15
Boreal
Finland
FI (Al)
Region of Aland
EU-15
Atlantic
France
FR (Co)
Corsica
EU-15
Mediterranean
France
FR
Hex
EU-15
Atlantic
France
FR (Gua)
Guadeloupe
EU-15-OR
Caribbean
France
FR (Re)
Reunion
EU-15-OR
African
France
FR (Gu)
Guiana
EU-15-OR
South American
France
FR (Ma)
Martinique
EU-15-OR
Caribbean
Germany
DE (Bw)
Baden Wurttemberg
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Ba)
Bavaria
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Bra/Be)
Brandenburg and Berlin
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Ha)
Hamburg
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (He)
Hessen
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (MV)
Mecklenburg Vorpommern
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Ni/B)
Niedersachsen and Bremen
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (NW)
Nordrhein-Westfalen
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (RP)
Rhineland Pfalz
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Saa)
Saarland
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Sac)
Sachsen
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (SH)
Schleswig-Holstein
EU-15
Atlantic
Germany
DE (SA)
Sachsen-Anhalt
EU-15
Continental
Germany
DE (Th)
Thuringen
EU-15
Continental
Greece
EL
-
EU-15
Mediterranean
Hungary
HU
-
EU-12
Pannonian
Ireland
IE
-
EU-15
Atlantic
Italy
IT (Ab)
Abruzzo
EU-15
Continental
Italy
IT (Bas)
Basilicata
EU-15
Mediterranean
140
Italy
IT (Bo)
Bolzano
EU-15
Alpine
Italy
IT (Cal)
Calabria
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (Cam)
Campania
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (La)
Lazio
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (ER)
Emilia Romagna
EU-15
Continental
Italy
IT (FVG)
Friuli Venezia Giulia
EU-15
Continental
Italy
IT (Li)
Liguria
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (Lo)
Lombardia
EU-15
Continental
Italy
IT (Ma)
Marche
EU-15
Continental
Italy
IT (Mo)
Molise
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (Pi)
Piedmont
EU-15
Continental
Italy
IT (Pu)
Apuilia (Puglia)
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (Sa)
Sardegna
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (Si)
Sicily
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (To)
Toscana
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (Tr)
Trento
EU-15
Alpine
Italy
IT (Um)
Umbria
EU-15
Mediterranean
Italy
IT (VdA)
Valle d'Aosta
EU-15
Alpine
Italy
IT (Ve)
Veneto
EU-15
Continental
Latvia
LV
-
EU-12
Boreal
Lithuania
LT
-
EU-12
Boreal
Luxembourg
LU
-
EU-15
Continental
Malta
MT
-
EU-12
Mediterranean
Netherlands
NL
-
EU-15
Atlantic
Poland
PL
-
EU-12
Continental
Portugal
PT
Mainland
EU-15
Mediterranean
Portugal
PT (Az)
Azores
EU-15-OR
Macronesia
Portugal
PT (Ma)
Madeira
EU-15-OR
Macronesia
Romania
RO
-
EU-12
Continental
Slovakia
SK
-
EU-12
Alpine
Slovenia
SI
-
EU-12
Continental
Spain
ES (Bl)
Balearic Islands
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (BC)
Basque Country
EU-15
Atlantic
Spain
ES (Cant)
Cantabria
EU-15
Atlantic
Spain
ES (CyL)
Castilla y Leon
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (Ex)
Extremadura
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (GA)
Galicia
EU-15
Atlantic
Spain
ES (Ma)
Madrid
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (an)
Andalucia
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (AR)
Aragón
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (As)
Asturias
EU-15
Atlantic
Spain
ES (ClM)
Castilla la Mancha
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (Cat)
Catalunya
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (LaR)
La Rioja
EU-15
Mediterranean
141
Spain
ES (Mu)
Murcia
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (Na)
Navarra
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (Va)
Valencia
EU-15
Mediterranean
Spain
ES (Cana)
Canaries
EU-15-OR
Macronesia
Sweden
SE
-
EU-15
Boreal
United Kingdom
UK (EN)
England
EU-15
Atlantic
United Kingdom
UK (NI)
Northern Ireland
EU-15
Atlantic
United Kingdom
UK (W)
Wales
EU-15
Atlantic
United Kingdom
UK (Sc)
Scotland
EU-15
Atlantic
Figure A3.1: Indicative map of bioclimatic regions in Europe (2008)
Source: EEA, 2006
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/biogeog_regions/maps/bio
geo_map_eur27.pdf
142
Box A3.1: Outermost regions of the European Union
The EU has nine regions that are geographically very distant from the European continent but
that still form an integral part of the EU Member States to which they belong. Known as the
‘outermost regions’, they are covered by EU law and the other rights and duties associated with
EU membership – in contrast to overseas territories, which have a different legal status. The nine
outermost regions are:
• Four French départements – Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Réunion and two
French collectivités d'outre-mer – Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin
• Two Portuguese autonomous regions – Madeira and the Azores - Açores 2010
• One Spanish autonomous community – the Canary Islands
In the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the outermost regions are covered by
Article 349, which recognises that EU policies must be adjusted to their special circumstances.
REGION
AZORES
CANARIES
GUADELOUPE
FRENCH GUIANA
MADEIRA
MARTINIQUE
RÉUNION
SAINTBARTHÉLÉMY*
SAINT-MARTIN*
LOCATION
CAPITAL
Atlantic
Atlantic
Caribbean
South America
Atlantic
Caribbean
Indian Ocean
Caribbean
Ponta Delgada
Las Palmas
Pointe-à-Pitre
Cayenne
Funchal
Fort-de-France
Saint-Denis
Gustavia
Caribbean
Marigot
SURFACE AREA
KM2
2,333
7,447
1,710
84,000
795
1,080
2,510
25
POPULATION
PER CAPITA GDP (EU=100)
237,900
1,715,700
425,700
161,100
244,800
383,300
715,900
8,300
66.7
93.7
70.6
50.5
94.9
75.6
61.6
111
53
35,000
61.9
* There is no Rural Development Programme for these two outermost regions
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/themes/outermost/index_en.htm
143
ANNEX 4 - DEVELOPMENT OF GAEC STANDARDS IN FRANCE 2006-2010
In France, GAEC standards were fixed by decree 2004-1429 on 23 December 2004 and by
the law of 12 January 2005, and were aimed at the prevention of soil erosion, the protection
of soil structure, the maintenance of organic matter level and ensuring a minimum level of
land maintenance.
GAEC standards were developed from existing rules like the codes of good agricultural
practices that had already existed for years in most of the French departments, as well as
regional rules attached to payments for set-aside land and Less Favoured Areas.
GAEC in 2005
In 2005 the French authorities defined six GAEC standards which were nationally applicable:
GAEC 1: Implementation of a minimum environmental area at holding level. This GAEC
is concerned with soil erosion issues. Three per cent of the area declared in cereals,
oilseed crops, flax/hemp and set-aside, has to have environmental cover. This has to be
maintained as a priority along streams to a minimum of five metres during the period
from 1 May to 31 August. Elsewhere, the minimum area of this ecological infrastructure
is 0.05 ha. Set-aside, pasture and grassland can be counted as environmental cover.
Small producers are not obliged to follow these rules.
GAEC 2: Prohibition of stubble burning. This requirement consists of not burning straw
or crop residues, to protect the organic matter of the soil and to avoid its
impoverishment. It applies to all the farmers applying for SPS and concerns the totality
of their land that is in cereal and oilseed crops. Rice producers are not included in this
requirement. In exceptional cases (to solve phytosanitary problems), derogations have
to be obtained at prefectural level.
GAEC 3: Diversity of crops cultivated. At least two crop families or three different crops
have to be grown on at least five per cent of the area; this requirement is linked to the
organic matter issues. Non-cultivated set-aside, permanent pastures and permanent
crops are not counted in this calculation. All farmers receiving SPS are included, except
those with systems entirely of temporary meadows, or with other monoculture systems
of production (of more than 95 % specialization). In those specific cases, they are obliged
to plant winter cover.
GAEC 4: Rules relating to irrigated crops. The objective of this GAEC is to ensure good
irrigation control to preserve soil structure and avoid compaction and erosion of topsoil.
GAEC 5: Minimum level of maintenance of land. The aim of this standard is to maintain
land (cultivated or not) in good agronomic and sanitary conditions (avoiding weed, pest
and scrub invasion) in order to protect the production potential of the land. There are
three categories of land:
 Land in crop production (cereals, oilseed crops and nut orchards): this land must be
entirely sown and maintained until the flowering of the crop, in conformity with local
practice.
 Pastures: criteria have to be defined at the local level and must specify the minimum
density of animals per ha, and requirements for grazing, mowing or cutting;
 Land set-aside (compulsory or voluntary): the requirements concern the minimum
maintenance of land, the type of cover (spontaneous or sown), with specific
144
9
requirements for meadows, fertilisation, succession of crops and set-aside, and the
specific requirements for environmental set aside.
GAEC 6: Maintenance of permanent pastures. This concerns the maintenance of the
proportion of permanent grassland in the UAA at national level. It applies to all farmers
benefiting from direct aids and having permanent meadows.
Changes over the next 3 years
In 2006, three main improvements were made:
 the definition of streams requiring grass buffer strips;
 the definition of a new category of land for GAEC 5: lands not in production; and
 the integration of the notion of ‘small producers’, which no longer existed in the EC
Regulations.
In 2007, the application conditions of GAEC 1 and 3 were specified; and GAEC 5 (the
minimum level of maintenance of land) was extended to olive groves as well as orchards.
In 2008, the fruit and vegetable sector was integrated into GAEC 5 and only minor
modifications were made to other GAEC standards.
In 2009, GAEC standards were adapted to the requirements of sustainable development, in
particular to favour biodiversity. GAEC 1, 3 and 5 were modified:
 GAEC 1: the list of permitted environmental cover was enlarged; hedges were
included in the calculation of the area under environmental cover; crushing and
mowing was not permitted before certain dates;
 GAEC 4: the licensing requirements for pumping water, and methods of calculating
volumes were extended to various crops;
 GAEC 3: the diversity of crops was redefined as planting either three different crops
representing 5 % or more of the cultivated land (3 % was accepted for the third
crop), or two different crops, of which one was either temporary grass or a pulse
crop and represented 10 % or more of cultivated land.
A revised set of standards in 2010
In 2010, GAEC changed again and seven standards have now been implemented:
GAEC I: Buffer strips along water courses (this new GAEC contains some of the
requirements of former GAEC 1):
Buffer strips must be implemented along water courses, with a minimum width of 5
metres of permanent cover throughout the year. Requirements for the maintenance
and use of buffer strips are strict: no agricultural inputs, no irrigation, no ploughing,
but mowing and grazing are allowed (rules for access of animals to the water
course).
GAEC II: Prohibition of stubble burning (this new GAEC contains some of the
requirements of former GAEC 2):
This requirement consists of not burning straw and crop residues, to protect the
organic matter of the soil and avoid its impoverishment. Rice producers are not
covered by this requirement.
GAEC III: Diversity of crops cultivated (this new GAEC contains some of the
requirements of former GAEC 3):
145
Two options are possible:
 establishment of at least three different crops each representing 5 % or more
of the cultivated land (but 3 % is acceptable for the third crop), or
 two different crops, of which one is either a temporary grassland or a pulse
crop and represents 10 % or more of the cultivated land (an alternative is
acceptable, of planting winter cover and/or managing crop residues).
GAEC IV: Pumping water for irrigation, extended to all cultivated land;
Two requirements are defined:
 the licensing requirements for pumping water and
 methods of estimating volumes.
GAEC V: Minimum maintenance of land (this new GAEC contains some of the
requirements of former GAEC 5):
Two categories of land are defined:
 Land in crop production (cereals, oilseed crops and nut orchards): this land
must be entirely sown and maintained until the flowering of the crop and in
conformity with local practice;
 Land set-aside: prohibition of bare soil, establishment of cover (spontaneous
or sown), prohibition of fertilising spontaneous cover, maximum of 50 kg of
total nitrogen per hectare to establish cover, rules for mowing.
GAEC VI: Management of grasslands (this new GAEC contains some of the
requirements of former GAEC 6);
Three requirements are defined:
 overall maintenance of grassland at farm level: 50% of reference area (2010)
for temporary grass, 100% for permanent grass;
 minimum productivity of forage area: minimum density of livestock of 0.2
LU/ha or a minimum yield of forage (details may vary locally);
 maintenance of the permanent pasture ratio, with 2005 as the reference
year.
GAEC VII: Retention of landscape features (this new GAEC contains some of the
requirements of former GAEC 1):
 permanent elements of landscape must cover 1% of UAA (achieved by new
planting if necessary).
146
ANNEX 5 - EXAMPLES OF FERTILISER AND PPP REQUIREMENTS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE
39(3) OF REGULATION 1698/2005
Table A5.1: Examples of fertiliser and PPP requirements defined under Article 39(3) of
Regulation 1698/2005
case
study
FR
Fertilisers
PPP
Two specific complementary requirements
on fertilisers and PPP were defined for
beneficiaries
of
agri-environment
measures, for contracts signed from 2007:
fertilisation practices with four
requirements: (1)existence of a
fertilisation plan for manure,
(2)existence of a logbook of
practices applied, (3)absence of
water pollution by nitrates and
(4)existence of an overall balance
of
nitrogen
fertilization
in
vulnerable areas;
use of crop protection products
with five requirements: (1) keeping
a register of plant protection
products, (2)delivery of the empty
packaging and unused plant
protection products to recovery
centres,, (3) periodic checking of
the
sprayer,
(4)
regulatory
compliance in untreated areas and
(5) use of authorized distributors
for the purchase of plant
protection products.
In 2008, checking the sprayers was not
compulsory for the specific complementary
requirements on fertilization practices.
IT
Minimum requirements for nitrate Minimum
requirements
for
plant
fertiliser use in non-vulnerable zones
protection product use
Adoption of the code of good
- farmer must have a special licence
agricultural practices (Ministerial
for the use of PPP
Decree 19/04/1999)
- farmer must follow a training
General technical criteria and
course
requirements for the use of
- storage of PPP must be secure
livestock effluents (Ministerial
- spraying machinery must be
Decree
7/04/2006),
regional
periodically checked
decrees expected
- requirements for the use of PPP
near watercourses or other
Minimum requirements for phosphates
sensitive areas (D.P.R. n. 236/1988
fertiliser use
and art. 93 legislative decree
General technical criteria and
152/2006
concerning
plant
requirements for the use of
protection products vulnerable
livestock effluents (Ministerial
areas)
Decree 7/04/2006), expectant the
regional decrees
Legislative Decree n. 99/92 on the
use of sewage sludge in agriculture
requirements
for
water
protection areas (art. 94 of
legislative decree 152/2006)
- requirements included in the
Water District Plans (art. 64 and
65/5
of
legislative
decree
152/2006)
147
UK
England
In NVZs – comply with revised Nitrates
Action Programme (2009)
Outside NVZs - comply the Code of Good
Agricultural Practice for the Protection of
Water
UK
New verifiable standards for 2010:
Scotland sanctions can be applied if:
- there is evidence that inorganic
(chemical) or organic (manure, slurry, etc.)
fertilisers are stored on land that is within
10 metres of any surface water or wetland;
within 50 metres of any well, spring or
borehole; waterlogged; where soil is
shallow;
- application of inorganic or organic
fertilisers poses a risk of pollution to the
water environment
- there is evidence that inorganic fertiliser
was applied to land within 2 metres of any
surface water or wetland and/or within 5
metres of a well, spring or borehole;
- there is evidence that organic fertiliser
was applied to land within 2 metres of an
artificial drainage ditch, within 5 metres of
any other surface water or wetland, within
50 metres of a well, spring or borehole, or
with an overall gradient more than 15
degrees.
148
Plant
Protection
Products
(Basic
Conditions) Regulations 1997 set out rules
for the training of all those who use, sell,
supply and store pesticides. In addition,
there are two statutory codes of Practice:
the Code of Practice for using Plant
Protection Products, and the Code of
Practice for suppliers of Pesticides to
Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry
New verifiable standards for 2010:
sanctions can be applied if:
- there is evidence of practices that could
result in spillages and washings entering
the water environment during preparation
of pesticide for application, cleaning or
maintenance of pesticide sprayers.
- spraying equipment is filled from the
water environment without a method to
prevent back siphoning, or the use of an
intermediate container.
- pesticide store does not meet the
requirements for safe storage (made of
easily cleaned materials; kept locked when
not in use; dry, with no drain pipes or
water supply in the store;
insulated
and/or heated to provide frost protection;
ventilated; identified with appropriate
warning signage; and capable
of
containing any spillages to the capacity of
110% of the maximum store contents.
ANNEX 6 – EXAMPLES OF PAYMENT CALCULATIONS
Table A6.1: Payment calculations for Bulgaria
Scheme
HNV 1: Restoration and maintenance of under-grazed
HNV grasslands
Summary of the required Cut grasslands:
management
 Limits to fertiliser application;
 Limits to pesticide application;
 No new drainage permitted;
 No ploughing permitted;
 Grazing regime (free grazing on meadows after
the last mowing except for meadows in forests);
 Cutting regime within fixed dates (between 15
June and 15 July for lowlands and between 30
June and 15 August for mountainous LFAs).
Cutting can be either manual or mechanical (as
long as it does not disturb nesting birds).
Grazed grasslands:
 Limits to fertiliser application;
 Limits to pesticide application;
 No new drainage permitted;
 No ploughing permitted;
 Grazing regime for entire grazing area (livestock
density must be between 0.3 and 1.5 LSU/ha).
Requirements: the farmer must specify each year
whether the grassland will be cut or grazed.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income foregone for shortening
the grazing period
Income foregone for cutting
regime
Savings
N/A
Total savings
EUR/ha
-
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
97
Nil
Nil
97
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
97
149
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
SW 1: Crop rotations for soil and water protection
required
 Limits to fertiliser and pesticide applications
(includes soil samples and a 5 year Nutrient
Management Plan);
 Crop rotation (4-crop rotation; maintain winter
crops on a minimum 50% of area under crop
rotation);
 Restricted management dates (must not
cultivate before 1 April).
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
EUR/ha
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Nil
Additional costs92
Seeds
Preparation of the soil and sowing
Ploughing of the winter cover
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
76
76
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
76
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
SW 2: Soil erosion control
required The farmer may choose to apply one or several of these
activities listed:
 In field grass buffer strips (4-8 m wide, running
perpendicularly to the slope, between 20-80 m
apart from each other, covering between 1030% of the total arable area);
 Cover crops;
 Run-off furrows (30-100 m wide, running
perpendicular to the slope, between 20-40 m
apart from each other);
92 Additional costs for
soil sampling and preparation of Nutrient management plans are not taken into account
since it is assumed that they will be done by the National Agricultural Advisory Service ( NAAS) free of
charge.
150
 In field crop buffer strips (30-100 m wide,


running perpendicular to the slope, with
alternating earthed-up crops planted on the
contour);
Grazing regime (extensive management, limited
livestock density to less than 2 LU/ha);
Improvement of pastures: clear debris (including
stones and unwanted vegetation); partial sowing
and nutrition of the pastures.
Requirements: farmer must have a 5 year anti-erosion
plan.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income
foregone
for
the
transformation of the arable land
to pasture
Savings
Reduced fertiliser usage
Additional incomes from: hay
from
pastures
(following
conversion from arable to
pasture)
Total savings
EUR/ha
-
-
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Additional cultivation – grass
cutting, sowing, soil packing,
ploughing, etc.
Seeds
Grassing of buffer strips
Marking of furrows and machine
time needed for their tracing
Improvement of grass cover and
it productivity
Cleaning pastures from stones
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
-
74
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
74
151
Table A6.2: Payment caluclations for Czech Republic
Scheme
Meadows (B1)
Summary of the required
 Limits to fertiliser application (no more that 60
management
kg N/ha/year);
 Prohibition of slurry (except for cattle slurry);
 Cutting regime (minimum 2 cuts/year and
removal of mown biomass).
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Gross margin on meadows with
typical level of fertilising (80 kg
N/ha)
Gross margin on meadows with
reduced level of fertilising (40 kg
N/ha)
Savings
N/A
Total savings
EUR/ha
219
144
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
75
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Nil
Nil
75
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
75
Pastures (B7)
required
 Limits to fertiliser application (no more that 80
kg N/ha/year);
 Prohibition of slurry (except for cattle slurry
which must be between 5 and 55 kg N/ha);
 Grazing regime (including technical or
organisational arrangements on pastures to
prevent animals escaping);
 Cutting regime (does not apply to land with a
slope of more than 10°);
 Limits to herbicide application;
 Provision of water for animals.
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Gross
margin
for
cattle 422
production
152
Income foregone from reduced 105
production
Savings
Cost savings for fertilisers
13
Total savings
13
Total income foregone
92
Additional costs
Additional costs for weed
removal by spot application of
herbicides
Additional costs for mowing of
ungrazed patches after end of
the grazing period
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
8
12
20
112
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Scheme
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
112
Landscape (C1)
Conversion of arable land to grassland (C1.1)
required
 Cover crop (seed mix or undersown cover crops
sown within fixed dates);
 No fertiliser application or grazing in the first
year of conversion;
 Cutting regime (minimum 2 cuts/year within
fixed dates unless approved otherwise; removal
of mown biomass);
 Grazing regime (within fixed dates);
 Manual or mechanical weed control: herbicides
(spot application only) permitted only in the first
two years after conversion and are prohibited
for organic farmers;
 Nitrogen containing fertilisers, livestock manure
and treated sludge are prohibited.
Requirements: applies to a minimum area of 0.1 ha;
arable areas that had in the past been registered as
grassland in the LPIS may not enter to this scheme.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Gross margin – arable land
Gross margin – grassland
Savings
EUR/ha
294
85
153
N/A
Total savings
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
One-off cost for grassing and
grass seed (recalculated as
annual cost over 5 years)
Additional costs for supplemental
sowing
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of the required
management
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Gross margin – arable land
Gross margin – grassland
Savings
N/A
Total savings
209
49
12
61
270
Nil
270
Conversion of arable land to grassland (C1.2)
 See sub scheme C1.1. above
EUR/ha
294
85
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
One-off cost for grassing and
grass seed (recalculated as
annual cost over 5 years)
Additional costs for supplemental
sowing
Additional costs for equipment
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
209
49
12
24
85
295
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
295
Sub scheme
Conversion of arable land to grassland with regional
mix of seeds (C1.3)
Summary of the required
 Cover crop (specified seed mix that has been
management
certified by regional authority)
 See sub scheme C1.1. above
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
EUR/ha
154
Gross margin – arable land
294
Gross margin – grassland –
recalculation
85
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
209
Additional costs
One-off cost for grassing and
grass seed (recalculated as
annual cost over 5 years)
Additional costs for supplemental
sowing
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
112
28
140
349
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
349
Sub scheme
Conversion of arable land to grassland with regional
mix of seeds and riparian buffer strips (C1.4)
Summary of the required
 Riparian buffer strip (minimum 15 m wide);
management
 See sub scheme C1.1. above
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Gross margin – arable land
Gross margin – grassland
Savings
N/A
Total savings
EUR/ha
294
85
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
One-off cost for grassing and
grass seed (recalculated as
annual cost over 5 years)
Additional costs for supplemental
sowing
Additional costs for equipment
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
209
112
28
25
165
374
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Scheme
374
Cover crops (C2)
155
Summary of
management
the

required


Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
Annual crop rotation that must include a
specified catch crop in specified areas, sown
within fixed dates;
Sow over winter crops;
No chemical or mechanical operations leading to
a liquidation of the catch crop or to a reduction
of the area under the catch crop shall be made
before a set date. After that date a main crop
shall be established.
EUR/ha
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Nil
Additional costs
Additional costs for seed
32
Additional costs for sowing catch
crops
53
Additional costs for removal of
catch crops
19
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
104
104
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
104
156
Table A6.3: Payment calculation for Finland
Scheme
Environmental planning and monitoring of farm
practices
Summary of the required The management is the same for different farming
management
systems but the payments vary:
 Annual cultivation plan (showing crop type and
fertiliser application);
 Soil samples every 5 years.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
EUR/ha
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Nil
Additional costs
Additional costs for man power
Additional costs for computer
software
Total additional costs - arable
Total additional costs – dairy
Total
additional
costs
horticulture
Net cost – arable
Net cost – dairy
Net cost - horticulture
Transaction costs
46.20
49
161.70
46.20
49
161.70
+20%
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
– arable
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
- dairy
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
- horticulture
Scheme
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
46.20
49
161.70
Nature management fields (taking land out of
production)
Nature management fields: long-term grassland
required
 Specified seed mixture (combination of grass
seeds, maximum 20% legumes, bioenergy reed
(Phalaris arundinacea) is accepted);
 No fertiliser application except at establishment;
 Mechanical weed control;
 Sward may be used as fodder;
157

Cutting regime (once every 3 years for fields that
have been in place for longer than 2 years).
Requirements: Must apply to a minimum 5% and
maximum 15% of area. Must be at least 0.5 ha.
Existing old grasslands can be subscribed as this fallow
type unless it has over 20% of legumes in the sward.
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Income foregone due to loss of 38.8
profit from cereal, corrected for
profit from hay
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
38.8
Additional costs
Cost of establishment (incl. seed) 30.8
Cost of potential maangement 32.4
(mowing and biomass removal)
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
63.2
101.9
+20%
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
17093
Sub scheme
Nature management fields: biodiversity field (game,
landscape and meadow)
Summary of the required
 Specified seed mixture (containing either lowmanagement
competitive grasses and meadow plants, or
game, or amenity species e.g., sunflower
(Helianthus annuus), phacelia (Phacelia) spp.,
common vetch (Vicia sativa), and garden
marigold (Calendula officinalis));
 Mechanical weed control;
 Sward cannot be used as fodder;
 For the meadow, must apply to a field for at
least 2 years;
 Game and landscape options should be
reseeded every year.
93 The
€170/ha consists of two elements: 1) payment for the basic entry-level scheme which is €93/ha on crop
farms and €106/ha on livestock farms; plus 2) payment for nature management fields (calculation shown
here) of €77ha or €63 /ha for crop and livestock farms respectively.
158
Requirements: Must apply to a minimum 5% and
maximum 15% of area. Must be at least 0.5 ha.
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Income foregone due to loss of 116.6
profit from cereal
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
116.6
Additional costs
Cost of establishment
Cost of seed
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
65.1
233
298.1
414.70
20%
Payment rate (approx.. 50 % of
net cost)
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
30094
Fertilisation of arable crops
required The management is the same for different farming
systems but the payments vary:
 Limits to fertiliser application;
 Soil samples every 5 years;
 Record keeping.
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Income foregone for lowered level of P and decrease in
biomass
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Additional costs for storage space
94
-
The €300/ha consists of two elements: 1) payment for the basic entry-level which is €93/ha on crop farms
and €106/ha on livestock farms; plus 2) payment for biodiversity fields (calculation shown here) of €207ha
or €194 /ha for crop and livestock farms respectively.
159
Additional costs for alternative
fertilisers
Total additional costs - arable
Total additional costs – dairy
Total
additional
costs
–
horticulture
Net cost – arable
Net cost – dairy
Net cost - horticulture
Transaction costs
Nil
12.50
23.70
Nil
+20%
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
– arable
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
- dairy
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
- horticulture
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
12.50
23.70
Nil
Headlands and filter strips
required The management is the same for different farming
systems but the payments vary:
 Riparian buffer strips (minimum 1m and
maximum 3m wide alongside ditches and other
water bodies, covered with perennial
herbaceous plants). These buffer strips may be
wider than 3m if for reasons of water
conservation but this must not exceed 10m.
 Non-riparian buffer strips may be established for
biological diversity reasons (must be 3m wide on
average).
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Income foregone for lost cultivated area
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Cost of establishment
Cost of management
Total additional costs - all farming
systems except horticulture
Total
additional
costs
-
160
horticulture
Net cost – all farming systems
except horticulture
Net cost - horticulture
Transaction costs
12.50
185.40
+20%
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
– all farming systems except
horticulture
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
- horticulture
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
4.20
185.40
Maintenance of biodiversity and landscape
required The management is the same for different farming
systems but the payments vary:
 Landscape feature management.
 No plant protection products permitted on
headlands of roads on arable land.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
EUR/ha
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Nil
Additional costs
Cost of management
Total additional costs - all farming
systems except horticulture
Total
additional
costs
horticulture
Net cost – all farming systems
except horticulture
Net cost - horticulture
Transaction costs
30.60
103.30
+20%
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
– all farming systems except
horticulture
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
- horticulture
30.60
103.30
161
Table A6.4: Payment calculation for France
Scheme
Extensive grazing systems (PHAE)
Summary of the required
 Area must be under contract for 5 years;
management
 No ploughing of permanent grassland permitted;
 Temporary grassland may be moved once in 5
years;
 Limits to fertiliser application (total nitrogen
fertilization limited to 125 unit/ha/year, with at
most 60 unit/ha/year in mineral; total
phosphate fertilization limit is 90 unit/ha/year,
with at most 60 unit/ha/year in mineral; total
potassium fertilization limit is 160 unit/ha/year,
with at most 60 unit/ha/year in mineral.
 Record keeping for inputs;
 Prohibition of chemical weed kill;
 Mechanical or manual shrub control;
 Biodiversity elements on at least 20% of the
contracted area
 Levelling and new drainage is prohibited.
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Income foregone due to yield 8.37
decrease
from
unploughed
pasture minus savings on grass
seed
Income foregone due to yield 71.96
decrease from reduced fertiliser
minus savings on fertiliser
Total income foregone
80.33
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Nil
80.33
Nil
Nil
Payment rate (95% of net cost)
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
76
Crop rotations and crop diversification (MAER)
required
 Crop rotation: minimum 3 crops per rotation for
at least 5 years; a field cannot be planted with
the same crop 2 years in a row; main crop must
be less than 45% of UAA under contract; the
three main crops together cannot total more
than 90% of UAA under contract.
162
Elements of payment calculation EUR/ha
Income foregone
Gross margin of normal crop 474.71 - 453.16
rotation minus gross margin of
agri-environment crop rotation
Savings
Saving on cost of phytosanitary 13.04
treatment
Total savings
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Additional man power
Additional
cost
of
fragmentation
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
21.55
13.04
8.51
3.31
plot 19.50
22.81
31.32
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
32
163
Table A6.5: Payment calculation for Poland
Scheme
Sustainable agriculture
Summary of the required
 Limits to fertiliser application in keeping with a
management
management plan based on soil samples;
 Crop rotation (minimum 3 crops);
 Must cut/graze permanent grassland;
 Prohibited use of sewage sludge;
 Maintain landscape features.
Elements of payment calculation PLN/ha
Income foregone
Income lost due extensive production
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Additional cost of soil samples
Additional cost of preparing nitrate balance
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
440
Nil
Payment
costs)95
rate
Scheme
Summary of
management
95
(82%
the
of
net
360 (92.20 EUR)
Extensive meadows and pastures
required Cutting:
 Cutting regime: within fixed dates (1 June – 30
September); maximum 2 cuts/year; must leave a
rotational 5-10% of the plot uncut; cutting
height must be between 5 – 15 cm; must cut in
circles from the centre outwards ; removal of cut
biomass (within two weeks of being cut).
 No fertiliser or plant protection products
permitted (exceptions may occur); no sewage
sludge permitted; limits to lime applications.
The agri-environment payment is granted at the rate of: 100% of the basic rate for the area of 1 ha to 100
ha; 50% of the basic rate for the area of 100.01 ha to 200 ha; and 10% of the basic rate for the area
exceeding 200 ha.
164





Improved farming systems (does not apply to
day-to-day maintenance or to increasing water
levels).
No ploughing permitted.
No rolling permitted.
No sod seeding permitted.
No levelling allowed between 1 April and 1
September.
Grazing:
 Grazing regime: maximum livestock density by
land; restricted grazing dates (from 1 May till 15
October); cutting is permitted in August and
September; in flooded areas must wait two
weeks after water recedes before grazing.
 No fertiliser or plant protection products
permitted (exceptions may occur); no sewage
sludge permitted; limits to lime applications.
 Improved farming systems (does not apply to
day-to-day maintenance or to increasing water
levels).
 No ploughing permitted.
 No rolling permitted.
 No sod seeding permitted.
 No levelling allowed between 1 April and 1
September.
Elements of payment calculation PLN/ha
Income foregone
Income foregone on account of extensive utilisation of a given
habitat
Savings
N/A
Nil
Total savings
Nil
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Removal or stacking the cut
biomass
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Payment
rate
(84%
596
Nil
of
net
500 (128.1 EUR)
165
costs)96
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
Undersowing
required
 Over winter cover – location must alternate
across holding within 5 year contract;
 Removal of straw after harvest;
 Restricted management dates (cultivation not to
restart before 1 March);
 Plough in undersown catch crop (except non
tillage cultivation systems);
 No sewage or sewage sludge permitted
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income foregone due to lower
standard gross margin in the
main yield
Savings
Improved soil quality in the
following year
Reduced nitrogen
Total savings
PLN/ha
-
-
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Additional cost of seeds
Additional cost of sowing more seeds
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
456
Nil
Payment rate (72% of net costs)
330 (84.50 EUR)
Scheme
Summary of
management
96
the
Winter catch cropping
required
 Over winter cover must be sown by the end of
September;
 No synthetic fertilisers permitted;
 No sewage or sewage sludge permitted;
 Plough in undersown catch crop (except non
tillage cultivation systems);
The agri-environment payment is granted at the rate of: 100% of basic rate for the area between 1 and 10
ha; 75% of basic rate for the area between 10.01 and 50 ha; 50% of basic rate for the area between 50.01
and 100 ha; 10% of basic rate for the area above 100 ha. This does not apply to areas under Natura 2000.
166

Restricted management dates (cultivation only
renewed after 1 March).
Elements of payment calculation PLN/ha
Income foregone
Gross margin from subsequent harvest lower by 30%
Savings
Reduced nitrogen use
Total savings
-
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Additional cost of seeds
Additional
cost
planting/sowing seeds
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
of 751
Nil
Payment rate (56% of net costs)
Scheme
Summary of
management
the
420 (107.6 EUR)
Stubble catch cropping
required
 Catch crop plants must be sown by the end of
September;
 No synthetic fertilisers permitted;
 No sewage or sewage sludge permitted;
 Plough in undersown after crop (except non
tillage cultivation systems);
 Restricted management dates (cultivation only
renewed after 1 March).
Elements of payment calculation PLN/ha
Income foregone
Lower gross margin from subsequent harvest
Savings
Reduced nitrogen use
Total savings
-
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Additional cost of seeds
Additional
cost
planting/sowing seeds
Total additional costs
of 167
Net cost
Transaction costs
695
Nil
Payment rate (58% of net costs)
400 (102.5 EUR)
Scheme
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
Buffer strips
2 m riparian buffer strip
required
 Maintain 2 m buffer strip;
 Cut once a year or once every two years before
30 September, preserving existing trees and
bushes;
 No fertiliser permitted;
 No plant protection products permitted;
 Remove unwanted vegetation within two weeks
of cut.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Loss of standard gross margin
Savings
Value of hay for bedding
Total savings
PLN/ha
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Cutting
Removal of cut biomass
Lost area payment
Lost LFA payment
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
2,243
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
2,243 (574.6 EUR/ha)
Sub scheme
5 m riparian buffer strip
Summary of the required
 Maintain 5 m buffer strip;
management
 Cut once a year or once every two years before
30 September, preserving existing trees and
bushes;
 No fertiliser permitted;
 No plant protection products permitted;
 Remove unwanted vegetation within two weeks
of cut.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
PLN/ha
168
Loss of standard gross margin
Savings
Value of hay for bedding
Total savings
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Cutting
Removal of cut biomass
Lost area payment
Lost LFA payment
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
2,243
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
2,243 (574.6 EUR/ha)
Sub scheme
2 m field margin
Summary of the required
 Maintain 2 m field margin;
management
 Cut once a year or once every two years before
30 September, preserving existing trees and
bushes and nurture hedges;
 No fertiliser permitted;
 No plant protection products permitted.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Loss of standard gross margin
Savings
Value of hay for bedding
Total savings
PLN/ha
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Cutting
Lost area payment
Lost LFA payment
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
2,033
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
2,033 (520.8 EUR/ha)
Sub scheme
5 m field margin
Summary of the required
 Maintain 5 m field margin;
management
 Cut once a year or once every two years before
30 September, preserving existing trees and
bushes and nurture hedges;
 No fertiliser permitted;
169

Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Loss of standard gross margin
Savings
Value of hay for bedding
Total savings
No plant protection products permitted.
PLN/ha
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Cutting
Lost area payment
Lost LFA payment
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
2,033
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
2,033 (520.8 EUR/ha)
170
Table A6.6: Payment calculation for England (UK)97
Scheme
Entry level stewardship
Sub scheme
Hedgerow management (EB1 and EB2)
Summary of the required
 Minimum height of 1.5 m;
management
 Maximum 1 cut of hedgerow every 2 years;
 No cutting March - August (extension of GAEC).
EB1 specifies management on one side and EB2
specifies hedgerow management on both sides.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
£/100m of hedge
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Labour and machinery
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Nil
22
22
22
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
22 (€28)
Sub scheme
Enhanced hedgerow management (EB3)
Summary of the required
 Minimum height of 2 m;
management
 Maximum 1 cut of hedgerow every 3 years.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
£/100m
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Labour and machinery
Total additional costs
Net cost
97 In the UK examples
Nil
44
44
44
a conversion rate of £1 to €1.25 has been used.
171
Transaction costs
Nil
Payment rate (92% of net costs)
42 (€53)
Sub scheme
2 m and 4 m buffer strips (EE1 and EE2)
Summary of the required
 Must be in addition to GAEC (ie the measured
management
width must start at 2 m);
 No fertiliser or manure permitted;
 Herbicide application only permitted by spot
application;
 Regular cutting may be undertaken in the first
12-24 months to control annual weeds and
encourage grasses to tiller, but after this period
cutting should be carried out only to control
woody growth, and no more than once in every
two years;
 No regular vehicular access.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Costs saved
Total savings
£/ha
398
82
82
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
316
74
390
Nil
Payment rate (77% of net costs)
300 (€375)
Sub scheme
6 m buffer strips (EE6 and EE9)
Summary of the required
 Must be in addition to GAEC (ie the measured
management
width must start at 2 m);
 No fertiliser or manure permitted;
 Herbicide application only permitted by spot
application;
 Regular cutting may be undertaken in the first
12-24 months to control annual weeds and
encourage grasses to tiller, but after this period,
cutting should be carried out only to control
woody growth, and no more than once in every
two years;
 No regular vehicular access;
 Must cut the three metres next to the crop
annually after mid-July;
172


Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Costs saved
Total savings
If the margin has a mixture of fine-leaved
grasses and flowers, annual cutting in August or
September is recommended, with an additional
cut in March or April if the flowering species are
suppressed;
Removal of cuttings is suggested, but not
required.
£/ha
398
82
82
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
316
74
390
Nil
Payment rate (103% of net costs)
400 (€500)
Sub scheme
Permanent grassland with low inputs outside Severely
Disadvantaged Area of LFA and Moorland Line (EK2)
Summary of the required
 Management by cutting or grazing;
management
 Cutting, harrowing and rolling are prohibited
between 1 April and 31 May;
 A range of sward heights should be maintained
through the season, with at least 20 per cent
less than seven centimetres and 20 per cent
more than seven centimetres (except when shut
up for hay or silage);
 Topping and herbicide use (by spot application
of weed-wiper) are allowed only for control of
injurious weeds and invasive non-native species,
or to control scrub invasion;
 Feeders must be moved as often as required to
prevent poaching;
 Nitrogen use is restricted to 50 kilograms per
hectare as inorganic fertiliser, or 100 kilograms
total, including organic manures;
 Liming is allowed.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
£/ha
173
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Costs saved
Total savings
368
228
132
360
Total income foregone
8
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
80
80
88
Nil
Payment rate (97% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
85 (€106)
Permanent grassland with very low inputs outside
Severely Disadvantaged Area of LFA and Moorland
Line (EK3)
required
 Management by cutting or grazing;
 Cutting, harrowing and rolling are prohibited
between 1 April and 30 June;
 A range of sward heights should be maintained
through the season, with at least 20 per cent
less than seven centimetres and 20 per cent
more than seven centimetres (except when shut
up for hay or silage);
 Topping and herbicide use (by spot application
of weed-wiper) are only allowed for control of
injurious weeds and invasive non-native species,
or to control scrub invasion;
 Feeders must be moved as often as required to
prevent poaching;
 No fertilisers of manures are allowed except for
farm manure up to 12.5 tonnes/ha where the
grass is regularly cut;
 Liming is allowed.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Costs saved
£/ha
368
126
132
Total savings
258
Total income foregone
110
Additional costs
174
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
40
40
150
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
150 (€188)
Sub scheme
Stubbles/post-harvest management (EF6)
Summary of the required
 Straw must be baled, or chopped and spread
management
after harvest;
 No pesticide, fertilisers, manures (including
manure heaps) or lime may be applied;
 The stubble must not be topped or grazed;
 No pre-harvest desiccants or post-harvest
herbicides must be applied, and
 The stubble must be retained until 14 February,
after which it can be returned to the farm
rotation.
Elements of payment calculation £/ha
Income foregone
Income lost
509
Savings
Extra income
383
Costs saved
14
Total savings
397
Total income foregone
112
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
16
16
128
Nil
Payment rate (94% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
120 (€150)
Management of maize crops to reduce soil erosion
(EJ2)
required
 Restricted management dates (harvest by 1
October and remove any compaction);
 Within
two
weeks
of
harvest
plough/cultivate/autumn sown crop/undersow
with a grass or grass-clover mix;
 Limits to slurry application.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
£/ha
15
175
N/A
Total savings
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
15
Nil
Nil
15
Nil
Payment rate (120% of net costs)
18 (€23)
Sub scheme
Enhanced management of maize crops to reduce soil
erosion (EJ10)
Summary of the required
 Restricted management dates (harvest by 1
management
October and remove any compaction);
 Establish autumn sown cover crop such as rye,
barley, mustard, which must remain for a
minimum six weeks before spring crop is
established;
 Limits to slurry application.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
N/A
Total savings
£/ha
94
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
94
Nil
Nil
94
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
94
Sub scheme
Infield grass areas to prevent erosion and run-off (EJ5)
Summary of the required
 Establish dense grass area on areas vulnerable
management
to soil erosion (light soils, steep slopes etc.);
 Similar management to buffer strips except that
after the first 12-24 months, the area is cut
annually after mid-July.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
£/ha
454
176
N/A
Total savings
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Payment rate (77% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of the required
management
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
454
Nil
Nil
454
Nil
350 (€438)
Stone walls (EB11)
£/100m
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Labour and cost of wall
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Nil
£22/100m
£22/100m
£22/100m
Nil
Payment rate (68% of net costs)
15 (€19)/100m
Sub scheme
Protection of in-field trees on arable (EC1)
Summary of the required Management applies to 2 m radius around tree:
management
 No cultivation;
 No supplementary animal feed;
 No storage of materials or machinery; no weed
control (except for spot application);
 No lime;
 No fertiliser or manure applications;
 Fallen branches must be left in situ.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Costs saved
Total savings
£/tree
398
82
82
Total income foregone
316
177
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
67
67
383/ha (12.03/tree)
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
12 (€15)/tree
Sub scheme
Protection of in-field trees on grassland (EC2)
Summary of the required Management applies to 2 m radius around tree:
management
 No cultivation;
 No supplementary animal feed;
 No storage of materials or machinery; No weed
control (except for spot application);
 No lime;
 No fertiliser or manure applications;
 Fallen branches must be left in situ.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Costs saved
Total savings
£/tree
679
184
146
330
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
349
23
23
372 (£16.38/tree)
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
16 (€20)/tree
Sub scheme
Maintenance of woodland fences (EC3)
Summary of the required
 Maintain fences in stock-proof condition to
management
ensure exclusion of livestock from woodland.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
£/100m
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Nil
£4/100m
178
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
4/100m
4/100m
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
4 (€5)/100m
Sub scheme
Management of woodland edges (EC4)
Summary of the required
 Maintain fences in stock-proof condition to
management
ensure exclusion of livestock from woodland;
 6 m buffer where cultivation is forbidden on
woodland edge;
 Cover of scrub growth must not exceed 50 per
cent of the area;
 Cutting can be carried out to maintain a
scrub/grass mosaic and for control of injurious
weeds or invasive non-native species (herbicides
can also be used by spot-treatment or weed
wiper);
 No more than a third of the shrubby growth can
be cut per year, and not between 1 March and
31 August;
 Supplementary feeders, water troughs or
mineral licks should not be positioned in such a
way as to cause poaching at the woodland edge.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Costs saved
Total savings
£/ha
467
82
82
Total income foregone
Additional costs
N/A
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
385
Nil
Nil
385
Nil
Payment rate (99% of net costs)
380 (€475)/ha
Sub scheme
Unfertilised cereal headlands (EF9)
Summary of the required
 6m-24m wide headland along edge of arable
management
crop
 No fertilisers or manure, limited pesticides and
herbicides.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
£/ha
179
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Costs saved
Total savings
590
492
79
571
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
19
89
89
108
Nil
Payment rate (93% of net costs)
100 (€125)/ha
Sub scheme
Unharvested cereal headlands (EF10)
Summary of the required
 Sow 3m-6m cereal headland and leave
management
unharvested until following spring
 No fertilisers or manure, limited pesticides and
herbicides.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Costs saved
Total savings
£/ha
590
162
202
364
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
226
104
104
330
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
330 (€413)/ha
Sub scheme
Mixed stocking (EK5)
Summary of the required
 Minimum 30% of livestock must be cattle and
management
minimum 15% sheep over two year period.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
£/ha
Nil
Nil
Nil
180
Total income foregone
Nil
Additional costs
Labour
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
9
9
9
Nil
Payment rate (89% of net costs)
8 (€10)/ha
Table A6.7: Payment calculation for Scotland (UK)
Scheme
Land Managers Option
Sub scheme
Hedgerow management (Option 13)
Summary of the required
 Minimum height of 1.5 m;
management
 Minimum 2 m wide at the base;
 Must be managed for at least two years to form
an ‘A’ shape;
 Restricted management dates – cutting only
permitted between 1 December and 1 March;
 Cutting only allowed once every two years and
thereafter once every three years;
 Gaps must be filled by planting; laying and
allowing the development of hedgerow trees are
encouraged.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
N/A
Savings
N/A
Total savings
£/m
Nil
Nil
Nil
Total income foregone
Nil
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
0.10
0.10
0.10
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
0.10 (€0.13)/m of
hedgerow
Buffer strips (Option 14)
required
 Management of grass margins and beetle banks
- location of grass strips is determined by a
diffuse pollution audit;
 Between 1.5 and 6 m in width (minimum 30 m
width of arable cropping next to a strip if the
181



Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Costs saved
Total savings
whole field is not dedicated to arable);
Margin may be grazed or topped after harvest,
maintaining a minimum average height of 100
millimetres;
No fertiliser, manure, slurry or pesticides can be
applied, with the exception of spot treatment;
Scrub control is prohibited without written
permission.
£/ha
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
473.76
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
473.76 (€592.2)/ha
Sub scheme
Stubbles/post harvest management (Option 17)
Summary of the required
 Retention of stubbles following cereal, protein
management
or oilseed crops (but not arable silage) until 1
March of the following year;
 Prohibition on the use of pre-harvest desiccants
and post-harvest herbicides;
 Controlled grazing permitted post harvest.
Elements of payment calculation £/ha
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Total savings
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
96
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Stone walls (Option 13)
182
96 (€120)/ha
Summary of
management
the

required
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Total savings
Repair of minor damage to stone walls
(‘drystane dykes’ in Scotland).
£/1m
-
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
0.10
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
0.10 (€13)/m of stone wall
Sub scheme
Conservation headlands
Summary of the required
 No pesticides may be applied without the
management
agreement of Scottish ministers;
 Retain stubble after harvest until of February
(additional £21 (€26) to standard payment).
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Total savings
£/ha
-
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
70
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of
management
the
70 (€88)/ha (can be higher
if additional management
action is adopted – see
above)
Premium conservation headlands
required
 No pesticides may be applied may be applied at
all without the agreement of Scottish ministers;
 No fertiliser application.
183
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Extra income
Total savings
£/ha
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
135.14
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
135.14 (€170)/ha
Sub scheme
Summer cattle grazing (Option 11)
Summary of the required
 Requires cattle to be turned out onto
management
unenclosed or hill land on or before 1 June, and
to be kept there for three months;
 Cattle must be at least six months old;
 Must be grazed at a minimum stocking level of
one animal per 25 hectares.
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Cost savings
Total savings
£/ha
-
Total income foregone
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
Sub scheme
Summary of the required
management
Elements of payment calculation
Income foregone
Income lost
Savings
Cost savings
393
Nil
393 (€491.25)/ha
Moorland grazing (Option 12)
 Prepare a moorland grazing plan and carry it out
£/ha
184
Total savings
-
Total income foregone
-
Additional costs
Extra costs
Total additional costs
Net cost
Transaction costs
149
Nil
Payment rate (100% of net costs)
149 (€186)/ha
185
ANNEX 7 - NGO-FUNDED PILOT AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES IN BULGARIA
In Bulgaria an alternative way of piloting agri-environment actions is through projects
implemented by environmental NGOs. The pilot schemes aim to test EAFRD measures that
are not supported by the Bulgarian Rural Development Programme (RDP), but could be
included if proven effective. Usually this is done with the support of the Ministry of
Agriculture and the paying agency (with letters of support, participation in the steering
committee of the project and in the evaluations commissioned). Such grant schemes are
implemented by the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) under the
GEF/UNDP funded project Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature
value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy. The
scheme featured here is implemented in three pilot regions which are IBAs – ‘Ponor’,
‘Besapari hills’ and ‘Western Balkan’. Financial support is offered to farmers under the
following measures:
 Natura 2000 compensatory payments;
 Agri-environment payments;
 Non-productive investments;
 Investment activities contributing to conservation of the traditional economies in
protected sites.
The activities are similar to the agri-environment action HNV1 (restoration and maintenance
of under-grazed HNV grasslands) and are summarised in the table below. The payment rates
were calculated for this regional scheme in 2009 (two years after the payments for the
national agri-environment measure were calculated) and are substantially higher (more
than double) for more or less the same activities.
Table A7.1: NGO-funded pilot agri-environment schemes in Bulgaria
Management
Management of grasslands through grazing – habitats with codes
requirements
6210, 6220, 6240, 6250, 62А0, 62С0:
 Direct payment for maintenance of stocking density from 0.3
up to 0.6 LU/ha. The development and observance of a grazing
plan is obligatory.
 Additional payments (up to 10% of the direct payment) for
pasturing of mixed flocks, including goats, at stocking density
from 0.3 to 0.6 LU/ha.
Payment
Payments are based on:
calculations
 Income forgone from lower livestock density/ ha
 Additional costs from activity that go beyond traditional
farming practices
 Compensation to farmers for not applying for Single Area
Payment Scheme
Reference level
No baseline requirements are specified. In the payment calculations it
is assumed that the traditional livestock density per ha is 1.8LU/ha
Management
Grassland management – habitats with codes 6510, 6520, through
requirements
mowing:
Mowing must be done manually or by slow grass cutting machines;
 Two mowings per year are allowed;
186
 The first mowing should be done after ripening of grass (up to
Payment
calculations
Reference level
Management
requirements
Payment
calculations
Reference level
500 m altitude after 15 June, between 500 m to 1000 m
altitude after 30 June and above 1000 m altitude after 15 July)
on 60% of the area;
 The areas left unmown should be used on rotational principle;
 Mowing height should be at least 8 cm. Strips of land wide up
to 1 m and covered with elder and nettle should be left where
the grassland abuts watercourses and/or bushes and trees;
 Mowing should be done from the centre to the periphery;
 Restrictions for manure – less than 1-1.5 tonnes per year. The
decomposition of the manure should be 3-4 months.
Payments are based on:
 Income forgone from losses of nutritive capacity of hay 50%;
 Additional costs from activity that go beyond the traditional
farming practices, including drying and collection of hay;
manual mowing; bailer;
 Compensation to farmers for not applying for Single Area
Payment Scheme.
No baseline requirements are specified. In the payment calculations it
is assumed that according to the GAEC requirement 4.2 the area that
is left unmown is 20% of the total area of the Natura 2000 site.
Grassland management – habitats with codes 6510, 6520, through
grazing:
 Direct payment for maintenance of stocking density from 0.8
LU/ha with development and observance of a grazing plan;
 Additional payments (up to 10% of the direct payment) for
pasturing of mixed flocks, including goats, with maintenance of
density of the livestock from 0.8 LU/ha.
Payments are based on:
 Income forgone from lower livestock density per ha;
 Additional costs from activity that surpasses the traditional
farming practices;
 Compensation to farmers for not applying for single payment
scheme.
No baseline requirements are specified. In the payment calculations it
is assumed that the traditional livestock density/ha is 1.8LU/ha
187
ANNEX 8 - REVISIONS TO THE ENTRY-LEVEL AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEME IN BULGARIA
DURING THE COURSE OF THE 2007-13 PROGRAMME
The table below illustrates the substantial modifications made to the Bulgarian HNV
grasslands schemes since 2007. Initially two separate entry-level schemes were devised to
address quite different problems – under-grazing and over-grazing – which require different
management. These schemes were both modified in 2009 to deal with implementation
problems but more recently they have had to be combined because data availability makes
it impossible to distinguish the two types of grassland.
Table A8.1: Revisions to the entry-level agri-environment scheme in Bulgaria during the
course of the 2007-13 programme
Version of RDP
RDP officially approved (December
2007)
Changes introduced
4th modification (2009)
HNV 1. Maintenance and restoration of undergrazed HNV grasslands
New requirement introduced: Each
year farmers have to specify
whether the grassland will be
mowed or grazed. Requirements
divided for grazing and mowing.
Clearance of all unwanted vegetation
Removed
Use of mineral fertilizers and application of
pesticides is prohibited except those
defined in Regulation (EEC) 2092/91
Remained the same
No new drainage and ploughing
Remained the same
Maintenance of minimum and maximum
density of livestock depending on natural
climatic and soil conditions in order to
assure a good ecological state of the
meadows and pastures and keep permanent
grass cover. The minimum and maximum
levels should be as follows:
 0.3-1.5 LSU/ha outside protected areas
 for protected territory min and max
livestock density has to be according to
the territory’s management plan (if such
a plan does not exist then the density
should be between 0.3-1.5 LSU/ha).
The requirement remained the same
but the second bullet was removed
(for protected territory min and max
livestock density have to be
according to the territory’s
management plan (if such a plan
does not exist then the density
should be between 0.3-1.5 LSU/ha).
This will make the management
requirement more specific and
will lead to better and easier
controllability and verifiability.
Requirement in GAEC regarded as
a baseline requirement
 Farmer should keep the minimum and
maximum stocking density in the whole
grazing area within the farmers block.
Respect of stocking density will take into
account all grazing livestock kept on the
farm
Free grazing on meadows after the last
mowing (except for meadows in the forests,
because they are a habitat for plant species
of European conservation importance
where the grazing might not be of benefit,
moreover the forest meadows are used for
grazing by wild fauna and human presence
might disturb them).
Justification
Remained the same
188
Removed because it was
impossible to control. GIS data
exists only for National Parks and
the grazing there is allowed only if
the farmer has permission for
grazing.
Removed after consultation with
the Ministry of Environment and
the Forestry Agency
th
Mowing should be later than 15 of June for
th
th
lowlands and between 30 of June and 15
of July for mountainous LFA as defined in
Measure 211 (Annex 5).
Modified to:
th
Mowing should be between 15 of
th
June and 15 of July for lowlands
th
th
and between 30 of June and 15 of
August for mountainous LFA as
defined in Measure 211 (Annex 5).
The period of mowing in the
mountain HNV farmland is
th
prolonged till 15 August, because
due to the climate in these areas
the grass may not be ready for
mowing earlier.
This requirement was modified
following a proposal of National
Agricultural Advisory Service
after consultations with farmers
The mowing may be done manually or if it is
with a slow grass cutting machine to be
from the centre towards the periphery of
the meadow and with low speed. (This will
allow the ground nesting birds and other
animals to escape
Grazing on sandy dunes is not allowed
Remained the same
Removed
The requirement exist in the
national legislation
HNV 2. Maintenance and restoration of overgrazed HNV grasslands
Same as HNV1 + re-seeding with seeds of
local provenance
The same changes as in HNV 1
scheme (above)
6th notification
Modified in 2009 as described above
(approved, December 2011)
HNV 1. Maintenance and restoration of undergrazed HNV grasslands
HNV 2. Maintenance and restoration of overgrazed HNV grasslands
HNV1
and There is no separate layer of undergrazed and
HNV2
overgrazed grasslands in LPIS (Land Parcel Identification
schemes
System). The farmers decided whether their grasslands
merged, with were over or undergrazed. Combining the two Schemes
the
facilitates the control, simplifies the implementation of
requirement
the activities of farmers and does not compromise the
for reseeding achievement of the objectives of the measure. In this
deleted from way the risk of incorrect identification of the type of
HNV2
grassland by the farmer in the application and the
acceptance of the requirements for management will be
avoided.
This modification was proposed after discussion with
the research institutes and NGOs to find out if a
definition of “overgrazed” or “undergrazed” grassland
could be introduced. Such a definition was not found
and thus the proposal was made
189
ANNEX 9 - EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE ENTRY LEVEL STEWARDSHIP SCHEME IN ENGLAND
Evidence used in developing the scheme
The processes leading up to the creation of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) in England have
been described by Radley et al (2005) and Grice et al (2007), and show that evidence was
drawn from a wide range of sources. These included:
 a review of data from monitoring and research on existing agri-environment schemes
(Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, 2003);
 an economic evaluation (Centre for Economics Research and CJC Consulting, 2002);
 three public consultations at different stages of scheme development; and
 a pilot study in four areas, representing different farming types (arable and horticulture,
lowland livestock, mixed lowland and upland), which was evaluated by the Central
Science Laboratory98 (Boatman et al, 2004). Because of the limited time available for the
evaluation, outcomes could not be measured directly, but a modelling exercise was
undertaken to predict the most likely outcomes on the basis of expert opinion.
Evidence base for the management prescriptions
The level of evidence available on which to base the management prescriptions varied. In
some cases, there was a substantial research base, showing benefits from specific types of
management. In other cases, prescriptions were largely based on the knowledge and
experience of Defra and Government environmental agencies, in consultation with
conservation NGOs.
A particularly strong evidence base was available for entry-level options on arable land.
Much of this research was stimulated by concern over the decline of common farmland bird
species, given impetus when Government adopted in 1999 a ‘wild bird population’ indicator
of sustainable development, which monitored populations of nineteen widespread farmland
bird species; a subsequent Government target to reverse the decline in this Farmland Bird
Index by 2020 reinforced this concern (Grice et al, 2007). Examples of this evidence base
include research showing: the importance of stubbles in providing food for overwintering
granivorous bird species (Evans, 1997; Vickery et al, 2002; Gillings et al, 2005), wild bird seed
mixtures to enhance seed food provision for overwintering birds (Boatman et al, 2002;
Henderson et al, 2004), ‘conservation headlands’ developed for grey partridges (Sotherton,
1991) and ‘skylark plots’ for skylarks (Morris et al, 2004), both developed specifically as a
result of research on the reasons for the decline of these iconic species.
In addition to this strong research base, the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme had provided
experience of implementation of many of the arable options in a commercial farming
context, and the evaluation provided evidence of responses by plants and invertebrates
(ADAS, 2001), birds and brown hare (Bradbury and Allen, 2003; Bradbury et al, 2004;
Browne and Aebischer, 2004).
Other prescriptions were also informed by research and monitoring experience from
previous agri-environment schemes (for a comprehensive review of monitoring and
98 now the Food and Environment Research Agency
190
evaluation of agri-environment schemes, following on from that of Ecoscope Applied
Ecologists (2003), see Boatman et al (2008)).
Reviewing the scheme during implementation
Shortly after Environmental Stewardship was launched, an evaluation of the operation of
the scheme during its first two years was commissioned by Defra from the Central Science
Laboratory (CSL) (Boatman et al, 2007a). Key messages were:
 Most participants, a majority of non-participants and stakeholders consulted
supported the scheme.
 The guidance provided was considered useful, though more guidance on option
choice would be beneficial.
 The pattern of uptake was strongly skewed, with many options exhibiting very low
uptake. For example, the six most popular options (of the 60 available) accounted for
around 50% of all points scored, with the top 20 covering 90%, suggesting that some
re-balancing might be called for.
 Farmers tended to choose options involving relatively little change to current
practice, or a reduction in management (e.g. cutting hedges less frequently),
although for certain options they appeared to have underestimated the amount of
change needed. Indeed, the baseline environmental assessment of the ELS and OELS
indicated that a considerable amount of change in management practices would be
required to fulfil option prescriptions.
 Quality of features being managed was generally good or very good, though some
were poor. Comparison with features outside the scheme indicated that, for many of
the attributes measured, higher quality features were being selected within farms
for entry into the scheme.
 Modelling of environmental benefits indicated that significant contributions will be
made by ELS/OELS, but greater uptake of some less popular options could increase
environmental benefits. There was also evidence of a gap between ELS and HLS
strands which might mean that opportunities for improvement were being missed.
The CSL evaluation formed the main evidence base for a review of progress by Defra in 2007
(Defra and Natural England, 2008), with the following aims:
 provide assurance in relation to delivery to date (on the basis of an independent
evaluation of performance);
 explore ways of securing better value for money, from the funding available; and
 take account of new policy priorities since the original launch in 2005, in particular
climate change.
Stakeholders attended four workshops in July, September and November 2007 and January
2008, and in addition written consultations were also carried out on all draft
recommendations. Other sources of evidence quoted included three additional studies by
CSL: a study to evaluate the contribution of ES to biodiversity indicators and to water quality
indicators (Boatman et al, 2007b); a study of the operation of ELS in upland areas (Bishop et
al, 2007), which showed that the barriers to entry in the uplands were largely perceived but
that more advice could be beneficial; and a re-evaluation of the ELS pilot areas (Bishop et al,
2008), which provided some useful evidence and detailed recommendations about specific
options, due to the longer time these agreements had been in place (four years) compared
to the national scheme. In addition, surveys by the NFU, Red Meat Industry Forum (RMIF)
191
and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) were consulted, which provided useful
evidence on farmers’ views of the entry-level scheme and how they might react to change.
Overall, this review recommended around 100 changes to ELS options, including around 40
changes to detail of the options to improve the scheme and resolve minor issues, about 27
to make options more demanding, about 20 to make them more flexible, and the
development and adoption of around 14 new options. Recommendations were also made
for the provision of an enhanced, geographically differentiated programme provision of
advice to ELS applicants, and to examine the possible inclusion of capital items in ELS. Ways
of stimulating uptake of a wider range of options, such as ‘split lists’ and points rebalancing
were recommended for consideration, along with the possibility of an enhanced ELS, with a
higher points threshold.
Some examples of revisions to ELS during the period 2008-2010
Key recommendations for changes to options are listed below, along with the years in which
they were implemented where applicable. In most cases, changes to options were
introduced in the 2008 version of the handbook (though a few were not introduced until
2009), whereas new options were introduced in 2009 or 2010. Note that some changes
appear under more than one heading and that other revisions not covered here are
described in Chapter 6.
Grassland
 EK2, EK3, EL2, EL3: add more explanation of desirable sward condition, and
prescriptions on sward height and topping. Consider separate options or
supplements for pastures and meadows (2008).
 EK5: Mixed stocking: increase requirement to 30% cattle (2009).
 EL5: allow supplementary feeding, with restrictions, and increase parcel size limit
(not implemented).
Arable
 EF9 and EF10: Remove conventional conservation headland as it does not deliver
value for money. Make fertiliser-free headlands unharvested to deliver seed supply
over the critical winter months between December and February (2008).
 EF2/EG2: Provide better specification of permitted crops, increase in scale allowed to
reduce the risks of rapid site depletion, and use of inputs to help establishment and
deliver greater wild bird seed yield (2008).
 EF4: Removal of requirement for grass, to help deliver more nectar (2008).
 EF8: Changes to establishment techniques of skylark plots to help increase uptake
(2008).
 EF11: Allow a range of margin widths that can be rotated and treated with herbicide
for problem weeds, to improve uptake (2008).
Field boundaries and woodlands
 EC4: Extend width of buffer for woodland edge options from 2 to 6m and tightening
of eligibility criteria and suitability guidance (2008).
 EC1/2: Investigate extension of buffer zone around infield trees from under the
canopy to 2m from the edge of the canopy (2009).
 New options: Introduce new options for the establishment of new hedgerow trees
and protection of existing hedgerow trees (2010).
192

EB1/2/8/9: Extend no-cutting period into August for basic hedgerow management
options (2008).
 EB1/3/8/10: Non-eligibility of roadside hedges for two-sided hedgerow management
options (2008).
Farmland birds
 EF3/4/9/10 etc.: Modify prescriptions for key arable options already in ELS (e.g.
wildlife seed mixtures, skylark plots, conservation headlands) (2008).
 EB1/2/8/9: Extend no cutting period into August for basic hedgerow management
options (2008).
 New options: New arable options in ELS (e.g. enhanced stubbles, summer
fallows)(2010).
 New options: Subject to the results of research, new grassland options in ELS e.g.
leaving silage to set seed (not yet implemented).
Resource protection
 New options: Consider/develop new options or capital items to reduce risk of soil
erosion and run-off, such as temporary or permanent vegetative buffers (2010).
 New options: Develop capital items/options for protection against wind erosion (not
implemented).
 EJ1: Remove EJ1 (Management of high erosion risk cultivated land) (2008).
 EG5: Remove EG5 (Management of brassica fodder crops followed by over-wintered
stubbles) (2008).
 New options: Develop new options for wide grass buffer strips (both riparian and infield), maintenance of riparian fencing and for enhanced management of maize
(2009, 2010).
 Consider ways of building on the benefits that management plans options previously
offered, in a way that adds value to ELS.
Recommendations for further research and evaluation
The review also made recommendations for further research and evaluation to:
 inform the optimum balance of agri-environment scheme intensity (£/ha/yr) and
coverage (ha in scheme) to achieve different objectives;
 develop further understanding of landscape scale requirements;
 continue to develop the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of agrienvironment spending;
 undertake further review to evaluate alternative policy and technical solutions to
securing environmental benefits in the long-term;
 allow the development of the impact of ES on climate change; and
 commission further research as necessary to provide evidence on environmentally
beneficial management combinations.
193